Lord King of Bridgwater

The Right Honourable Thomas Jeremy King, CH, having been created Baron King of Bridgwater, of Bridgwater in the County of Somerset, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Viscount Younger of Leckie and the Lord Mayhew of Twysden.

Lord Kilclooney

The Right Honourable John David Taylor, having been created Baron Kilclooney, of Armagh in the County of Armagh, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Molyneaux of Killead and the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.

Company Directors' Remuneration

Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the basis for the proposed legislation to control excessive salary and related payments made to private company chief executives and board members.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are very concerned that there should be a strong linkage between directors' rewards and performance. We have already announced our intention to legislate to strengthen the disclosure requirements in that area. We have also said that we shall take a final decision on how to improve directors' accountability to shareholders in the light of the company law review's recommendations on related issues such as voting at general meetings and the enforcement of fair dealing by directors. That remains the case.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is he aware that the number and scale of such increases are a scandal? It is deeply disappointing that a Labour Government, having been in power for four years, have done nothing to control them. Does he agree that the argument that such payments reward success is nonsense when so many of the companies concerned have failed, and in some cases have suffered huge losses? Will my noble friend add to his Answer and tell us when at least some of the recommendations in the report on modern company law will be introduced, particularly those relating to remuneration committees and accountability to shareholders?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that the linkage between rewards and performance has not been as strong or clear as it should be. There is cause for concern on that. I think that my noble friend will be pleasantly surprised at how soon an announcement will be made about the action that the Government are taking. In this context I use the word "soon" in its colloquial sense, not its political sense of "I haven't a clue when it is going to take place".

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of the general public do not feel so strongly about rewards for someone doing a good job, but are quite upset to see people going away with a golden handshake of millions when they have failed completely? I am told that that is covered by contract law. Can anything be done on that aspect?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, people feel strongly about those who walk away from companies with large rewards. In this case, it is for the directors of the company to come up with the best arrangements. That decision has to be taken in the light of the circumstances of the company. It is for the shareholders of the company to hold the directors to account for their actions. The role of the Government should be to make certain that there are good governance arrangements in place so that shareholders are able to hold directors to account.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, under the present situation, institutional shareholders in most sizeable companies are perfectly capable of applying pressure to boards if they believe that companies are behaving wrongly?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not certain that that is the case. I believe that the procedures relating to this matter are rather difficult. They lead to the unfortunate situation whereby the only way in which shareholders can make their views known is by voting against the reappointment of a director to the remuneration committee. I do not believe that that is satisfactory, and I consider that there is a case for looking strongly at how we can improve the system.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the position would be a great deal clearer, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, would not have to continue to ask this Question, if the Government were to set out whether in principle they believe that legislation should be brought in to control what they regard as excessive increases or whether they simply believe that the legislation will deal with better disclosure?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that this is a matter for the Government, and none of the reports on corporate governance has suggested that it is for the Government to take action to control salary levels. In this case we are talking about, and the Government are concerned with, the corporate governance arrangements whereby shareholders can legitimately hold directors to account in what they do.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this pressing problem raised by my noble friend demonstrates the importance of maintaining the legal duty placed by the Companies Act on directors since 1980? The relevant section of the Act states that they must take into consideration in the performance of their functions the interests of employees as a whole as well as the interests of shareholders.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that that they should take account of the impact that such increases have on employee morale. That is an important issue. To reiterate the point that I made, I believe that it is appropriate for shareholders to ensure that they do so.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the number of people who live below the poverty line is increasing. Indeed, national statistics for the past five years show that the percentage of the population below the low-income thresholds, which vary with mean income, rose slightly during that period. Shall we be surprised to hear soon how the Government will reverse that trend?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. We are talking about directors' salaries. The comparisons that can be drawn between the increases that top directors receive and those that people in the economy generally receive do not make a great deal of sense. However, the improvement in low pay, on which this Government notably have taken major action in terms of minimum wage legislation, and so on, in the face of total opposition from the noble Lord's party, is a quite separate issue.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what is his idea of a proper salary for a competent director? Would it be fair to say that it should be rather less than that of the Lord Chancellor or the Prime Minister? Surely he has a figure in mind.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, obviously it must be more. However, taking into consideration the range of companies and jobs done by directors, it is clear that there will be a vast range of appropriate salaries. I believe that we can all agree that, if the performance of directors is outstanding and their company is doing very well, they should be rewarded appropriately. However, most of us find it unacceptable when directors appear to be rewarded extremely well for performance which is extremely poor.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, in the clamour for the shareholders of Railtrack to be compensated as a consequence of the company's collapse, does my noble friend know whether Mr Gerald Corbett, who eventually had to resign due to his culpability in the causes of the crash at Hatfield, which occurred exactly one year ago today, has returned any of the £1 million pay-off that he received? What did the shareholders do to resist that payment?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that that is exactly the type of situation on which we want to see action. Of course, people's contracts must be taken into account. As Mr Bonham made clear in the case of the salary of the noble Lord, Lord Simpson, there is very little that a chairman of a company can do in circumstances where a contract exists and where it is quite clear that, if that contract is taken to the courts, the company will lose.

State Benefits: Hospital Downrating Rule

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to review the hospital downrating rule for the state pension.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, is looking at issues affecting hospital in-patients. The rules governing the downrating of benefits are being reviewed.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that it would be very much in keeping with the Government's policy towards poorer people to address this issue now and to update the policy in a way that would be more suited to the 21st century rather than to apply the policy formulated in 1948?
	Age Concern has recently drawn attention to the anomalous downrating rule. It is odd that pensioners are the only people who are forced to pay to stay in hospital. More than 30,000 pensioners in the year 2000 had their pensions docked for being in a hospital for too long. Approximately £60 million was taken from state pensions. Pensioners believed that they had earned and saved that money during all their working days. Is the Minister aware of any private pension provider that cuts benefits?
	Finally, does she agree that people who stay in hospital for a fairly long time--say, six weeks--are likely to be rather ill; otherwise, in theory at least, they would be transferred to long-term care settings? Many geriatric beds have now gone. Does the Minister agree that a review is needed on this policy as soon as possible, both formally and openly?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is well known to the House for her honourable advocacy of the concerns of pensioners. I am sure that we all support her in that. However, over and beyond the question of cost, I believe that two considerations make this a complicated issue. The first has been the long-standing provision since 1948 that there should not be double-funding. In other words, if one receives a widow's benefit, one does not also receive retirement pension; and if one receives income support or related benefits, one does not also receive free provision for one's care, and so on, in hospital. Therefore, if we were to move away from that principle, a read-across over the whole social security system would have to be explored.
	The second consideration was also raised by the noble Baroness; that is, the read-across to people in private residential care and local authority homes who, after 12 weeks, have all their benefit taken towards their charges, apart from £16 a week pocket money. I believe that it would be invidious if people in long-stay hospitals were to keep every penny of their benefit. Most of the benefit received by people in residential care goes towards their care. Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the point raised by the noble Baroness, we need to explore the real issues associated with this matter.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, In the light of the Minister's forthcoming initial reply, does she agree that the report by Age Concern entitled, Penalised for Being Ill is timely. The Government statistics seem to be extraordinarily out of date. The figure of £60 million for the abolition of the rule, which was given just before the Recess, is exactly the same as that given four or five years ago by the previous Conservative Government, which cannot possibly be right. The Government apparently have no idea of the administration costs. Will the review which the Minister mentioned take into account the need to ensure that those who have benefits withdrawn have them reinstated immediately they leave hospital?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is likely that the figures offered by the previous Conservative Government were not accurate. That may well be the case. I am sure that the House would like to hear the figures I have. My understanding is that to remove the six-week rule for pensioners would cost about £30 million; to remove the fifty-two week rule for pensioners would cost £60 million, and to remove the rule for other people on related benefits would cost another £40 million. That would cost around £100 million in total. It may be that the noble Lord has other figures. However, I would not rely too much on the accuracy of the previous set of figures.
	Perhaps I may correct a possible misapprehension by the noble Lord. I did not say that there is a review, but that we were keeping benefits under review--as we do with all such benefits--which is rather different.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although there are undoubted savings associated with being in hospital, there are also undoubted extra costs. I refer, for example, to particular kinds of food which may need to be purchased, and to the cost of visiting for spouses and relatives.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. At present, the effect of the charges on a pensioner couple, if one is in hospital for more than six weeks, is an approximate reduction of five per cent of their joint pension income. That is for a 52-week period, which, given the reduction in the cost of food, and the like, I believe most people would not think unreasonable. I take the point made by my noble friend about transport. First a relative or carer on income support or JSA would have access to the social fund community care grants, which are available for transport to hospital. I am assured by my noble friend Lord Hunt that the Department of Health is currently considering the wider issues of transport raised by the Kennedy report.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I refer to the figures given by the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the cost of any change. Are those changes exclusively in the budget of the Department of Social Security, or do they take account of administrative costs falling on the National Health Service?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I referred to the cost of not withdrawing benefit, as currently happens.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether people in hospital would have access to the social fund to pay for rent, rates and other weekly expenses? I do not refer to the cost of food. If that is not the case, people will get into debt.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, for a person whose benefit is reduced after six weeks there is a reduction of £28 for a single person and £14 a week for a couple. Housing benefit, council tax and the like are not affected. The reduction is from their total income. Therefore, their housing situation--rent and rates--will continue unchanged for 12 months. After that, because housing benefit and council tax benefit are renewed and reviewed every year, it would become a matter for the local authority.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the main wishes of pensioners in hospital is to return home as soon as possible and, when they do so, to be as independent as possible? Can she tell the House what the Government are doing to support pensioners in that way?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. The main push of government policy is for community care. The Department of Health has recently announced not just that £1.4 billion is to go into the nursing home sector, but that there will be a further £300 million to end bed blocking. Over and above that, I am pleased to tell the House that my own department has put together what I consider to be a good package of support for carers, which includes respite care, and has developed direct payments for elderly people so that they can employ the health and support services they need. I am sure that every one of us would wish, if at all possible, to live in our own homes. Our aim is to ensure that all people, irrespective of income, have a similar choice.

Israel: EU Representations

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations European Union Ministers have recently made to the Government of Israel about the internal situation in Israel.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the European Union has made a number of representations to the Government of Israel about the situation in the occupied territories but not about the internal situation in Israel. Since the start of the intifada on 28th September 2000, there have been 16 EU demarches on, inter alia, restrictions on free movement, Israeli incursions into Palestinian authority controlled areas, extra-judicial killings, settlements, the closure of Orient House and the repayment of tax revenues. In the same period, the European Union delivered six demarches to the Palestinian authority, including on the death penalty.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to condemn utterly the assassination of Minister Zeevi in Jerusalem today. Does the noble Baroness recall that Minister Zeevi once campaigned on the slogan, "Arabs should go back to Mecca"? Does she agree that, far from adding to the security of Israel, such attitudes, combined with the fact of the astonishing figure of 400,000 illegal settlers today in the occupied territories, increase the dangers, as today's tragedy sadly shows?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in his condemnation of the assassination that took place this morning. Not only has my right honourable friend the Secretary of State condemned the assassination, so too has President Arafat in unambiguous terms. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would not wish in any way to give even a shred of comfort or a hint of justification to those who have murdered a senior member of an elected government, no matter what the views of any such member on any subject. That sort of political violence is totally unacceptable. However much individuals or groups of individuals may disagree with what a politician has said, I am sure we would all agree that a politician in a democracy must be able to express views without fear of an assassin's bullet.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to express sympathy for the family of Minister Zeevi. There is a tragic inclination at present for a new "tit-for-tat" to take place in which leaders of each side are destroyed by the other. Given that in the end these political leaders will have to meet to discuss together, this development seems to be entirely tragic and short-sighted.
	Does the Minister agree that the proposed EU mission to the Middle East could be of great use in the present, tense situation? Does she further agree that the recommendation and welcome extended by the US Secretary of State to that mission is a small constructive step to what we hope may one day be a lasting settlement?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that these "tit-for-tat" killings, as she described them, are in no way conducive to the peace process, which I am sure the overwhelming majority of your Lordships--and, I suspect, of right-minded people everywhere--would wish to see going forward. It is my view that those who committed this act have done a great disservice to all those Palestinians and Israelis who need peace, justice and security in their country.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that the EU mission should receive our good wishes. We hope that it will take forward the Mitchell proposals which Her Majesty's Government believe to be the right way forward in trying to find a route back to the peace process. It should be remembered that those proposals suggest that there should be an absolute freeze on settlement--a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont--which has been the cause of so much unhappiness to the Palestinians.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that history has dealt unkindly with both peoples in the Middle Eastern dispute and that they both deserve our sympathy and understanding? Does she further agree that whenever the peace process appears to be underway, somebody finds a method of destroying the accords, strengthening the extremists and weakening the peacemakers? Finally, does she agree that if we cannot bring about a reconciliation and heal the wounds, we should at least abstain from interventions which are likely to inflame the situation?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that both sides are suffering considerably in the current situation. Your Lordships may know that barely a week goes by without our learning of more families being ripped apart by violence. Often those who suffer the violence are young people. I make no discrimination on either side in that regard; the death of a young person--indeed the death of any person--is equally to be regretted on whatever side of an argument such death may occur. But we must do our best, even in these difficult circumstances, to look forward. In fact, violence in the area had decreased in the past couple of weeks or so, certainly since 7th October. It is the view not only of Her Majesty's Government, but also of our colleagues in the United States and the European Union, that the recommendations of the Mitchell committee, which cover many of the points at issue, are where we must focus our diplomatic effort. They were published in May this year. They were followed by the Tenet accord, published in June this year, which exhorts both Israelis and Palestinians to implement a security work plan to enforce the declared ceasefire. It is on Mitchell and Tenet that we should be directing our efforts.

Railtrack Successor Company: Funding

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the circumstances in which public money would be paid to the successor company which they envisage taking over control of the railway system.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government proposed that a private sector company limited by guarantee should succeed Railtrack. Public money would be paid to such a company when it can deliver effective management control over its business, with stronger performance incentives within an appropriate framework of regulation. We believe that would provide greater value for money for public support for both rail users and the taxpayer.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. On Monday this week the noble and learned Lord answered the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, when he asked how the money was going to be raised, in this way:
	"The new company will be able to raise capital on the basis that it will be a company limited by guarantee, with certain assets guaranteed by certain people".--(Official Report, 15/10/01; col. 394.)
	Who will be the guarantor? What are the "certain assets"? Who are the "certain people"?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in order to raise money, the company will need to have reserves and have the ability to raise debt investment in the City. In order to do that, it will need to have a triple B rating and we will set up a structure to do that. That will enable it to raise the money it needs to continue trading.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend share my surprise at the loss of memory of so many noble Lords opposite as to who was responsible for this sorry mess in the first place? Does he also agree that it seems a remarkable success by the present Minister for the directors of Railtrack to be seen as the good guys? The noble Baroness made a good point. What rate of interest is likely to be offered for bonds that may be issued to the new company without any government guarantee?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the ability to raise money in the market on the basis of debt investment will depend upon the credit rating that the company obtains. The higher the credit rating, the cheaper it will be to raise money in the market. A triple B rating--that is the structure we intend to introduce--will be sufficient to raise money at reasonable market rates. Unlike my noble friend, I am not surprised that there appears to be a sudden loss of memory on the Benches opposite as to who set up the structure that led to this.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, this morning's Financial Times said that disposal will generate large fees for experts. Will the Minister please tell us that we are going to spend more money on the railway in future and a lot less on the experts who seem to jump on every gravy train that noble Lords care to invent?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as we discussed in this House on Monday this week, this is a real opportunity to ensure that we put in place a structure for the railways that delivers high quality service for the travelling public. It is right that we should consult as widely as possible. It is also right that we should take sensible advice for which reasonable fees are paid. We should ensure that there is no gravy train on to which such consultants can jump.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord answer the questions put by my noble friend? Who will be the guarantor? What are the assets? What people will be involved?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there will be no need for guarantors. The position is that if the company has a triple B credit rating, it will be able to borrow money in the market.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that part of the problem with Railtrack over the past six years has been that it has not known what its assets are, as we saw after Hatfield? Does he agree that no due diligence could have been carried out when Railtrack was privatised? How will he ensure that proper due diligence is carried out now so that those who might invest in or lend to Railtrack know what the assets are against which they are making their investment?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it became apparent, during the period leading up to the appointment of administrators, that Railtrack was not aware, for example, how much money it would need to invest for the future in order to survive. It was perfectly plain that there were significant areas where inadequate control had been exercised over a long period of time. That is why I said that there would not be an input of public money until there was effective management control over the business to which that money is to be paid.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, to the best of my hearing the noble and learned Lord has still failed to answer the three specific questions initially raised by my noble friend Lady Blatch and subsequently raised by my noble friend Lady Noakes. Will he do the House a service and answer those three questions specifically?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe I answered those questions. The critical point is how money will be raised by the new company. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about guarantors. I indicated that there will not be a need for guarantors because the company will have a sufficient credit rating to raise money in the market.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that there is now a great opportunity to undo the damage that the fragmentation of the railway created? We can now move forward to a situation where there are clear lines of accountability and responsibility so that we get away from the blame culture where everybody is searching for an alibi and looking for someone else to blame when things go wrong.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lord, I believe that this is a day to look forward. It is a day to see that there is scope for a renewed railway which will produce real service to the travelling public.

Christmas Day (Trading) Bill [H.L.]

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit trading on Christmas Day in certain cases and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.--(Lord Davies of Coity.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Inglewood set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Earl Howe to two hours.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Countryside and Tourism

Lord Inglewood: rose to call attention to the need for a strategy for the recovery of the countryside, tourism and rural businesses; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, as noble Lords may know, the debate was originally in the name of my noble friend Lord Geddes, but he has handed it over to me. While some of your Lordships may feel that they have come under false pretences, I hope that they will not also be disappointed.
	In March and April this year I spoke in your Lordships' House about the impact of foot and mouth disease in my home county of Cumbria. I shall not repeat what I said then, but I must begin by once more declaring the interest I declared on those occasions. Indeed, I do not want to speak specifically much about foot and mouth, although on one of the occasions to which I referred a personal friend who sits on the Benches opposite said to me that he thought I had been a bit unfair to the Government in my remarks. I have since thought about that criticism and must say that on the basis of my own experience and those of my neighbours I do not believe that I was.
	What has occurred in Cumbria is, in economic terms, dire and there has been enormous destruction of assets and wealth. It has been calculated by Cumbria County Council's rural task force that approximately 5 per cent of the county's total GDP has been destroyed.
	Metaphorically, we are at war. For that reason, I and many others want to put aside party differences to unite in the process of reconstruction. Against that background, I want to repeat today what the Minister has heard me say elsewhere; that I regret that there will not be a full public inquiry. Many Cumbrians believe that the Government have something to cover up. Understandably, after what they have gone through, that is causing real resentment.
	When I was talking to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, about the problems we both agreed that foot and mouth disease did not fundamentally change the problems facing the areas affected; it merely vastly accelerated the pace of many of the changes which were happening anyway. In this debate I want to speak generally about the problems facing rural Britain today. And I want to emphasise that it is not only about farming; it is about tourism, rural businesses, services, communities and the environment. One cannot pick and mix between them because they are all a seamless piece.
	I hope that I shall set a framework within which others, who have less time to speak, will be able to make their particular points. And as we have many a true expert in the list I anticipate some telling points being made, not least from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, whose maiden speech we await with anticipation. The diocese of Peterborough is some distance from the diocese of Carlisle, in which I live, but my mother's family live not far from the city and I was confirmed by one of his predecessors, Cyril Easthaugh. But of course he can in no way be held responsible for anything I might have said or done since.
	I want to begin by talking about what I have christened the "Great Mistake", the "Great Myth" and the "Great Error". The "Great Mistake" is the land use policy, accepted by all political parties for many years, that agriculture and forestry are probably the only two "proper" activities in the countryside. That idea became entrenched at the heart of the way in which the town and country planning system was applied in this country from at least the 1940s. It certainly does not represent the reality of 18th or 19th century Britain where the countryside was the location of a wide range of activities. While the rationale for that approach is understandable, especially with hindsight, it is clear that it was mistaken.
	The "Great Myth" is that farmers are the last of the John Bull breed; sturdy, independent yeomen working their land in splendid individual isolation; the archetypal businessmen beholden to no one; and the direct spiritual descendent of William Cobbett. The reality is that in all western countries there are complicated systems of agricultural support which are invariably politically sensitive. The farmer is penned in on all sides by policy and is permitted to do little other than farming with his land. In reality, he is operating within a set of narrowly drawn parameters and in fact agriculture is one of the most heavily regulated industries that we have.
	The "Great Error" is the approach we have had for many years of supporting rural Britain by supporting agricultural output more or less to the exclusion of everything else. That goes back long before the CAP, deep into the traditions of domestic United Kingdom agriculture support.
	For far too long, rural Britain has too often been seen as synonymous with agricultural Britain. It is not. And agriculture has been perceived as a single output activity when in fact it is multifunctional. It is not and never should be seen simply as an industry which produces mere food. It could and should produce inter alia the environment, the raw material of rural tourism, much of the fabric of rural society, the setting for suitable rural business as well as being the site of the production of what I call high quality food as opposed to human fodder. By focusing too much support and placing too much emphasis on production, agriculture has lost its bearings and with it rural Britain has lost its way.
	I do not believe that there will be much disagreement around the Chamber about that analysis and I believe that that general consensus is important, as I shall explain in a moment. I, and I suspect a number of other noble Lords, walked across to the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre in July to listen to the "Two Feisty Ladies"--the right honourable Member for Derby South and Mrs Renate Kunast, the German Green Minister for agriculture, when they spoke at a conference. The general thrust of their approach was one with which I had considerable sympathy, although I had a number of disagreements on emphasis and detail. Nevertheless, the points of agreement seemed to be greater than those of disagreement.
	As I shall explain in a moment, it follows that the political problems of agriculture and rural Britain should not be and are not domestic party political divisions. After all, the hurdles in the way of progress are the CAP reform and the World Trade Organisation. Since the Berlin Summit 2000 we have seen a formal change in emphasis at European Union level. It is what the right honourable Member for Derby South called the second pillar of the CAP; the development of rural development policies. The change of emphasis is, of course, too slow and the myriad of outstanding problems cannot be resolved in the 2002 review, but we are on the move and evolution of the concept of national envelopes in the way in which the CAP is delivered, and giving more and more discretion to member state's governments in delivering the policy, has the potential to be helpful.
	One must also remember that, especially as regards some of the southern European countries, the CAP is a kind of sacrament and that this special quality is not only associated with the policy itself but is in equal measure attached to its outdated delivery systems. An ally in the assault of the sacred CAP is the World Trade Organisation, which for good reasons has its targets focused on trade distorting output encouraging subsidies.
	What is required is the drawing together of the various potential allies in a united coalition to move the argument on and to develop policies which flow from them in a direction in which we in Britain as a whole want to see. I believe that there are many shared fundamental views between all political sides in the debate. I want to know what steps the Government are taking to ensure that politicians who are not of their party--for example, Commissioner Chris Patten or me and my Conservative MEP colleagues--have some ownership and participation in these policies and that we all advocate the kind of changes that we desire to see in the international fora where many of the decisions which matter will be taken. In those the divide is essentially along national, not ideological, lines. I have seen at first hand the way in which the Germans do this very effectively. The German Government know that they cannot themselves do the kinds of things that they want. I should like to know how the Government propose to draw all of us into this campaign.
	Farming is a very circumscribed industry. Under Article 33(1)(b) of the European treaty the Government have a duty to,
	"ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture".
	I should, therefore, like to ask the Minister how that squares with current net farm incomes which, as can be seen from official figures, corroborated by the recently published Deloitte Touche report, are in some sectors below the level of the minimum wage. Can the Minister explain to the House how farm incomes should be allowed to drop below a level which the Government consider to be too low for an employer to offer when they have a treaty obligation to increase them? If I may describe myself as a simple Cumbrian farmer, it does not appear to stack up.
	Probably the single most important factor in this decline is the strength of the pound against the euro. There is absolutely no need to join the euro to iron out the distortion and injustices that it has caused. Agrimonetary provisions are available, but why have they not been used? To have done so certainly would have helped to ease, but only eased, the plight of the countryside and, to some extent, helped the Government to honour their obligations. I hope that the Minister will not give us the old chestnut about agricultural support being manifested straight away in increased land values. After all, there is no direct correlation between them, as can be clearly seen from the recent relevant figures.
	I referred earlier in my remarks to the Cumbria task force which is now looking at means of reviving the devastated Cumbrian economy. Increasingly, it is clear that however laudable may be the aims of policy--there is a great deal of common ground between all sides about what the Government aspire to for the countryside--the means to get there are not in place. Just as derelict inner city areas require, and have in the past received, massive sums of money to pick themselves up by their bootstraps--a number of them have been conspicuously successful--how will we enable rural Britain to move forward having haemorrhaged for so long? After all, bankrupt peasants cannot do it.
	As a measure of the importance of this matter it is now public knowledge that the Cumbria task force estimates that it needs about £¼ billion to get itself going again. I shall not even ask the Minister to give an undertaking that the Treasury will not make that money available; I am sure that he can give a commitment to that effect with total confidence. But I ask the noble Lord to give the Government's view on how the actual implementation for their aspirations for rural Britain can be brought about. What we need now are not necessarily new policies but new enabling measures.
	Earlier in my remarks I referred to the "Great Mistake", namely the policy of a single land use--agriculture--in the countryside. As we move into a world of greater leisure and mobility the tourist industry in general, and rural tourism in particular, becomes of increasing importance to our country and the countryside. Figures issued recently by the British Tourist Association about the impact of foot and mouth and the atrocities in New York show how important this sector of the rural economy has now become.
	In developing rural tourism and suitable businesses located in the countryside it is of paramount importance not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. After all, one of the reasons for the expulsion of non-agricultural uses from the countryside was their generally intrusive appearance, and visual and physical degradation and dereliction must not be allowed to happen. The way to avoid that is to insist on a high standard of development, but in turn that is expensive. Currently, a rural economy on its knees is in no position to achieve that, so how is it to be brought about?
	Probably the greatest single cause of inner urban decline and dereliction was the failure of business to make its own way there under its own steam. The economic haemorrhaging of much of rural Britain--not only England but also Wales and Scotland--is propelling these areas towards the same problems of a downward economic spiral.
	It is sound policy to attack the provisions of the discredited common agricultural policy for it wastes millions of pounds on doing the wrong things and fails to provide for the things that it should pay for, but, however attractive it may appear to the Treasury to believe it, it may be a mistake to assume that the conclusion to be drawn is that no public money should be spent on rural Britain. Over the past half-century the amount of public money spent on agriculture in this country has more or less halved as a percentage of GDP. We all know that we cannot get something for nothing for long.
	Rural Britain contributes a lot to this country and for years much of that has not been paid for properly. The working capital is now running out, and unless it is replenished and a proper return is received the whole thing will seize up. The Government do not want that to happen; they have said so, and I believe them. But good intentions are in themselves insufficient. What we need is a framework that positively promotes the right thing: a policy to get things done and a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. In that regard the Government have European obligations. How are they to meet them? In short, we need means, not dreams. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Geddes, for the opportunity to debate this subject this afternoon. If the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will forgive my saying so, his speech today was all the more effective because of the moderation and thoughtful way in which it was presented, in contrast to the noble Lord's intervention on foot and mouth.
	If we look to a strategy for the future--I declare an interest as vice-president of the Council for National Parks and member of the north west regional committee of the National Trust--we must address some practical issues which now confront farmers. First, farmers find the existing arrangements hard to operate. The paperwork is onerous and takes up at least a day per week, and obviously the amount of time that is being spent on it is increasing. There is an emphasis on policing with penalties, which does not leave much room for encouraging positive thought and ideas about future action. Farmers are ageing, which raises the question of who will be there to do the innovation. With average subsidies of some £30,000 and incomes of some £6,000 a year, or less in many instances, inevitably that greatly influences agricultural performance. Farmers concentrate on what attracts the subsidy as distinct from what the market might otherwise really demand.
	Underlying all this are the distortions introduced by the common agricultural policy. Pillar 1, which represents 90 per cent of what is available, emphasises production; pillar 2, with only 10 per cent, is for the management of the environment and related issues. That results in over-production and over-grazing. Where I live--the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will know it well--there are severe problems of over-grazing on the fells. Beyond that, it also undermines the attention which should be paid to quality, fattening stock and the rest. We are now reaching the stage where environmental considerations are so crucial to the future of humanity that we must have a change of mindset whereby we begin to regard management of the environment as the dominating concern and talk about how to fit agriculture into that, rather than carry on as in the past by emphasising agriculture and talking about some environmental responsibilities which have to be taken into account in the agricultural priority.
	The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was absolutely right to emphasise that we must not concentrate simply on the farming community and that there must be an integrated approach--the recent crisis has underlined that beyond any doubt--to tourism, rural businesses, environment and biodiversity.
	There is one practical observation that I should like to make to the Minister. I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will be able to look at the matter. In the areas where we have national parks we have an ideal opportunity to present model schemes for an integrated approach to meet the reality of the inter-dependence which is there and to produce practical policies which may turn this to an advantage rather than seeing it as a problem to be contained.
	Lastly, I hope that we do not drift into a situation in this country where we begin to see an adversarial relationship between the interests of the countryside and those of urban areas. The countryside is tremendously dependent--consumers, wealth production and the rest--on urban communities. Urban communities are desperately dependent on the countryside, not least for recreation and regeneration, but also for what it produces. We need integrated policies that recognise this, stress the inter- dependence and make an advantage of it. I hope that we shall not simply try to return to the situation that existed before the awful food and mouth experiences, but that we shall treat the severity of those experiences as an opportunity for some genuine new thinking about new strategies to meet the century ahead.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not want to talk a great deal about the strategy. That has been put over quite well. I agree that agriculture is not everything in the countryside. In fact tourism has probably suffered more. However, I want agriculture still to be considered for what it is--an extremely important industry. It is one which has done this country a great deal of good in the past and could well do it a good deal of good in the future.
	I have just been to the national fruit show in Kent. It is a great pity that the noble Lord and the Minister could not go. I understand of course that they are extremely busy. It was fascinating. The industry is doing all the things that it should. It is looking at the breeding of new fruits to counter the various diseases that attack them. It is talking about organic fruit. It is marketing. It is introducing new machinery. Everything that an industry should do to improve itself in marketing and the production of the goods is being done. It has not fallen into the error such as one sees with imported strawberries where most of them look beautiful but have the consistency of a carrot and the taste of a turnip. That industry has gone solidly for the strawberry that we used to like. It is a very important part of industry. It is an example. It is not heavily supported at all. However, it is doing extremely well.
	The Government must look in any future reorganisation at imports. So far as we know, foot and mouth came from imports and their control. There is no question that many of the practices abroad when producing agricultural produce lower the costs of our competitors enormously, providing them with an unfair advantage over our farmers. The Government must look at that.
	The main point I wish to make concerns the foot and mouth epidemic. We must learn the lessons from that. The biggest lesson that the Government must learn is that we need more official vets. Half the trouble was caused by the slowness in analysing the outbreaks because of an enormous shortage of vets. We had to appeal for vets from all over the world. I am afraid that we must spend more money on a more competent and larger official veterinary body looking after the health of the cattle and sheep and the animals of this country.
	In the countryside as a whole I agree that agriculture has to be replaced in many cases by tourism, small industry or bigger industry, whatever it may be. There is one factor that stands against people working in the countryside. That is the business of houses which were built to let being sold to the children of elderly people who then sell them. They are bought by people who want to live in the country as a second, or as a first home. People--decent chaps--who want to work in the country cannot get a house. The Government must stop the sale of these houses which are built and subsidised publicly and keep them for letting for which they were meant.
	One other matter that the Government might look at is the offering to farmers in the hills of £10 for a lamb. If one cut off the hind legs and sold them separately one would get £10. However, to buy them at a tenner and destroy them is not good policy.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I recognise that this will be a wide-ranging debate because, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, countryside issues form a seamless web. I recognise that the health of the countryside is about much more than the health of farming. Nevertheless, I want to concentrate on farming in the short time available to me. In particular, I should like to make four propositions about farming which, from an economic point of view, I think I am in a position to make.
	The first is perhaps the most unusual. We can no longer safely rely on foreign imports for all our food requirements. That has been a long-standing security argument for a country growing its own food. It has been strengthened by the events of 11th September. I do not want to make too much of that argument, but, undoubtedly, transport costs have increased as a result of the outrages of that date. Therefore, the argument for growing as much of one's food as possible, and in particular the argument for local markets, has been strengthened and the consumer's perspective on these matters is no longer the only one to adopt if we are thinking about the future.
	The second argument is also a familiar one but needs to be emphasised. A vibrant national society needs its citizens to develop the full range of their natural talents and interests. An over-specialised society is one that is impoverished, spiritually and intellectually. That is an argument for preserving a variety of activities in a country and not adopting an exclusively urban or an exclusively industrial perspective. One does not have to say that rural life is healthier than urban life, although many of the statistics suggest that it is; it is just a necessary component of a varied life.
	A third argument is that a countryside confers benefits on visitors whether they come from England or abroad. They cannot readily be charged for those benefits. One can charge someone for a room in a hotel, a meal or a visit to a historic house. One cannot charge them for most of the settings which make these amenities attractive to people. Those settings are essentially provided by the landscaped countryside which is and has been the work of farmers over the centuries. That is a familiar argument for subsidy.
	Finally, there is no doubt that most people in this country strongly want the countryside to be preserved, even if they do not visit it or experience it that much. It is a value. It is part of what Britishness is about. For that reason, I am pleased that the Government have set up the new DEFRA to supervise the affairs of the countryside. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be invisible and that she will soon make her own views and those of the Government known.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I speak in the debate not only from knowledge of my own diocese, which extends across the whole of rural Northamptonshire and the county of Rutland, but also from four years' experience as Bishop of Lewes in Sussex and with long-standing knowledge of Cumbria, where my father still lives. I was in the north Pennines when the last cluster of outbreaks of foot and mouth disease occurred in Allendale at the end of August. For the first time in my life, I found myself living within the "blue box".
	In the short time available this afternoon I can touch on only a few of the range of issues which were raised by members of the General Synod in its moving debate held in July. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has already indicated, the effects of foot and mouth disease on the farming and tourism industries have been devastating, but they have only accelerated processes that were already under way. The economic shape of agriculture will inevitably change. Indeed, the pattern of subsidies has already changed to encourage a lower level of stocking and to promote an environmentally friendly approach.
	I believe that farmers deserve our thanks more than our criticism for their care of the environment, but so-called green farming must be profitable if it is to survive. Farm gate prices must reflect more closely the price we pay in our supermarket-driven economy. Farmers tell me that those who can sustain their incomes from a variety of sources will survive. I fear that many smaller tenant farmers may not. There is an urgent need both for alternative employment to subsidise farm incomes and for affordable rented housing for those who, with heavy hearts, decide to leave the livelihood they have known and loved.
	The Church-led initiative, the ARC-Addington Fund, supported by the Royal Agricultural Society of England, has been able to offer some help. To date it has raised over £10.5 million and has distributed some £8.6 million through our agricultural chaplains and the Farm Crisis Network to over 18,000 applicants.
	But if regeneration is to take place, we must restore a sense of confidence, both that the inter-connectedness of farming, tourism and rural businesses is understood and that the need for a vibrant and profitable agriculture remains part of the strategy for the recovery of which the noble Lord has spoken. That is particularly true for hill farmers, many of whom are not members of the National Farmers Union, and who sometimes feel that neither their interests nor their experience is being heard.
	Last November's White Paper, written of course before the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, recognised that rural life and the rural environment as we know it would not exist without farming. A vibrant countryside needs a vibrant agricultural industry. The unique character of our rural areas which is so attractive to tourists is a managed character--centuries of agricultural practice and experience have made it the place we value.
	Therefore we must seize the opportunity to address certain fundamental questions. What is the nature of our countryside and what is it for? How can we be good stewards rather than exploiters of its resources and its beauty? How can we rebuild lives and an economy which will sustain families and our rural communities?
	The Churches see themselves as active partners in that process. They value the countryside as a spiritual resource as well as the base for a vital industry. Church buildings in themselves are major tourist attractions, as well as key centres for the community. But local initiatives need support. The economic downturn and the devastation in our sheep and cattle, as well as the international situation, mean that rural communities need financial help as well as our active encouragement. Whatever support the Treasury can give will not be wasted. To quote a Cumbrian farmer:
	"Government support for the recovery programme will be fully repaid in the rebirth of a new and active rural economy delivering the products and environmental goods which are demanded today".
	That must be our aim.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, it is a great honour to extend the congratulations of the whole House to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough on his maiden speech. In my brief career in this House, it was one of the most stimulating maiden speeches that I have had the honour to hear.
	If I may say so, the right reverend Prelate has gained a reputation in the Church of England for a combination of scholarship and pastoral care. He served his time--perhaps I may put it like that--as a suffragan bishop and his promotion to a diocesan bishop was welcomed, I understand, with undiluted enthusiasm by all those who know him. The right reverend Prelate carries with him a reputation for not being shy of controversy. I am sure that all Members of this House hope that he will endorse that reputation in his future contributions to our debates.
	I begin by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Geddes, for tabling this subject for debate today. I want to concentrate on a wide-ranging strategy for our countryside which was published last November in the Government's rural White Paper. At the time it was widely recognised as a ground-breaking document. No previous government have ever made such a comprehensive commitment to our rural communities. As someone who comes from and has lived most of my life in a rural area, I certainly recognise its importance. I also know at first hand how rural communities declined over the 20 years prior to 1997. Indeed, the electorate also recognised that. That is why, since 1997, it is Labour Members of the other place who represent more rural seats than any other party.
	There will not be time today to outline all the Government's strategies, so I have chosen what I believe to be the key ones. The first is the revitalisation of market towns. The Government have pledged to speed up revitalisation and to ensure that they are vibrant places in which to live. Major initiatives relate to good quality public transport, affordable housing, more power to local communities and parishes to ensure that their voices are heard in local government, as well as more support for farmers and local businesses.
	Secondly, the Government have made pledges to rural transport, which is so vital, for example, to the elderly, to those with disabilities, to people with young families and to those who need to use public transport to travel to work. Recognising that a good number of families living in rural areas do not own a car, the Government have allocated £62 million to improve rural bus services. Contrast that with the previous administration's rundown over two decades of local public services.
	I turn next to housing--a further must if our rural areas are to retain younger people and our retired folk. Such housing must be affordable and be located in local villages and towns. The Housing Corporation has already announced that it will double its provision of such homes by 2004.
	As regards schools, between 1983 and 1997, over 25 local schools were closed each year. In contrast with that policy, the Government have pledged an extra £180 million to help small schools. My daughter works as a school secretary in a lovely village in Suffolk. I know at first hand how the Government's measures are helping villages to retain and improve local schools, which are a vital part of the rural way of life.
	Lastly, I turn to health. So many local hospitals were closed and their remits changed in the 1980s and early 1990s, with the result that vast numbers of people living in rural areas now have to travel many miles to their nearest hospitals. That is why the new mobile units, hospital tele-links and primecare centres, proposed by the Government in the NHS Plan, are so welcome.
	I could go on, but time does not permit. I hope that, in this brief outline of the Government's initiatives, I have been able to demonstrate the Government's commitment to and strategy for the countryside as a whole. As Margaret Beckett said in a recent speech:
	"Initiatives taken by this Government represent the most substantial and sustained investment in rural areas that we have seen by any government";
	and that is how it should be.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I have been involved in agriculture all of my life.
	It is often said nowadays that the countryside is going through the worst depression since the 1930s and before. So it is. I agree with my noble friend Lord Inglewood that the problems being faced by rural communities were there before foot and mouth and that the disease has merely exacerbated and accelerated them.
	I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough when he said, in a notable maiden speech, that the heart of a successful countryside must be a successful agriculture. He is completely right. The prosperity of the countryside, of the environment, of the villages, of the country towns, of the many manufacturing companies and distributors who operate there, and of the many people who work within them, depends on a vibrant and successful agriculture.
	Of course, agriculture has been smitten recently by salmonella, swine fever, BSE and foot and mouth, together with the collapse in corn prices and milk prices. Average farm incomes--excluding hill farmers and intensive pig and poultry farmers--are apparently now £2,500 a year. No industry--indeed, no individual business or individual person--can stick that kind of thing for long; and they have not. Some 50,000 people have left agriculture this year.
	I want to make two points. The first is that confidence must be brought back into agriculture. It is, of course, easy to say that; it is much more difficult to do. But as long as the countryside is considered to be a place full of disease and burning carcasses, where walking is restricted and "keep-out" notices abound, no one will want to visit it. Tourism will suffer, as indeed will agriculture.
	We all know that foot and mouth has caused the most unbelievable devastation. People have seen their life's work destroyed and animals they have loved--sometimes even their pets--killed. We know the reason. It is the slaughter and compensation policy of which I have always, up until now, been in favour. Whether we should continue with that policy or move to another is a deeply complicated scientific matter. Personal views should not muddy the waters until such time as a review has been undertaken in the aftermath, as it were, of the battle. I agree with my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, when they express surprise that the Government have so far rejected a full public inquiry. Like them, I urge the Government to hold one into the current foot and mouth epidemic.
	As my noble friend said, we are left with the inescapable feeling that the Government are afraid of a public inquiry, either for what it will say or because they may have something to hide. I cannot believe that they have anything to hide. Everyone involved in the epidemic worked their hardest and to the best of their ability for the public benefit. The point of an inquiry would be not to criticise, to blame or to carry out a witch-hunt, but to try to learn, in the aftermath of this devastating outbreak, what went right and what went wrong in order that we might be better placed to deal with any future outbreak should it occur.
	After all, one way or another, this disease has cost £5,000 million pounds. That really does deserve an inquiry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can give us some encouragement that a public inquiry will take place. The Government have set up some eight inquiries into all kinds of different matters, but I do not think that they will be suitable because they either overlap or are not extensive enough.
	My second point is one with which I have assailed your Lordships before. On the grounds that I will be flattered if your Lordships remember anything that I have said by the end of the debate, I should like to say it once again. The Government have made it fairly clear that, in their view, what matters in the countryside and the environment are the birds and the bees, the wildlife, the flora, the fauna and the visitors. The production of food is de minimis; we can get that elsewhere.
	I do not have time to dilate on that subject. However, I should like to remind your Lordships that in 1960 there were 3,000 million people in the world. That figure has doubled in the past 40 years to 6,000 million; and in the next 25 years it is likely to double again to 12,000 million. So some people will in the course of their life have seen the population of the world multiply four-fold. That is a devastating thought.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that we should be a supplier of food. We cannot afford to say, "The production of food does not matter. We can get it elsewhere". In the short term we may be able to; in the long term we may not.
	Agriculture has been one of the strategic defences of this country. In their desire to "modernise" everything, I hope that the Government will not make the mistake of making impotent that particular line of defence or of making impotent agriculture's traditional--and still hugely important--role of providing food. On that depends so much the health of the countryside as a whole.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for his succinct and realistic appraisal of the crisis currently being experienced by all those involved in the rural economy. As other noble Lords have said, it must not be forgotten that this deep, deep depression was well and truly rooted prior to the ugly appearance of foot and mouth disease.
	I must, as always, declare an interest as someone who tries to farm and as president of the British Association of Biofuels. I also share my home and gardens with the visiting public and I am heavily involved in all aspects of rural tourism.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said on 19th August:
	"This Government is fully committed to a viable, vibrant and sustainable British agricultural sector containing both livestock and arable farms".
	Those words should be music to all of those involved in the rural economy, especially when he went on to add, much to the amazement of many,
	"This Government is in the business of construction not demolition".
	It is time for plain speaking on countryside matters and also time for new ideas and solutions. The countryside is our main food factory. It is also the backdrop for much of our tourist industry and a playground for many.
	Our farmers currently produce 80 per cent of the temperate food which can be grown here, and they do so to the highest possible standards. This work has not been helped in the past by the activities of MAFF. Let us hope that DEFRA shows more knowledge and sense. But the DEFRA official who recently asked an acquaintance of mine what sex his bull was does not exactly inspire confidence.
	However, we now have more land than is currently needed for food production, although that may not always be the case. Fuel, however, is another mainstream product essential to our survival. The time has come to get road fuel from spare farmland, and so help safeguard our whole economic system.
	Old MAFF policy on energy is in disarray and ridicule. For all the talk of biomass and electricity generation, only some 1,500 hectares of biomass coppice has been planted--0.01 per cent of UK farmland. It is hard to believe that civil servants have so misguided Ministers that where road transport and rural policy come together the results have been so totally pathetic--a market share of only 0.01 per cent for road gas and 0.01 per cent of farmland for energy.
	There is, however, a clear and logical way forward. I believe that our farmers should be turned from fuel protestors to fuel producers. British agriculture could within 10 years be producing 10 per cent of our road transport fuel, in the form of biodiesel and bioethanol, from 10 per cent of our farmland. That surely must be attractive to the Government now that Saudi and other oil supplies are in doubt. The biofuels are particularly clean, both on tailpipe emissions and on greenhouse gas emissions. They also add greatly to biodiversity.
	How can this most attractive state of affairs be brought about? Very simply. Just give the biofuels, bioethanol and biodiesel, the same duty rebate as has already been given to the gas fuels--that is, 4.5p per litre. At that duty rate the industry will spring into life and rapidly eclipse the misguided gas and biomass policies of the old DETR and MAFF. Major companies with world experience and fully adequate capital are waiting in the wings to revitalise British agriculture and the rural economy with a brand new business--the "British Agricultural Energy Industry".
	I beg the Chancellor in his November Statement to take this route, which will ensure safer and sustainable fuel supplies and a revitalised agricultural industry. It will produce exactly what the Government and the nation want and need--that is, worthwhile amounts of clean, green road transport fuels.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on initiating the debate. Not for the first time, I have been overwhelmed by the amazing amount of good sense in remarks from all corners of the House.
	I want to refer to one group of people who use the countryside; namely, hill-walkers and climbers--those who might generally be described as mountaineers--and the contribution that we can make to the future, particularly of the upland areas of this country which are in many cases in the most need and suffer the greatest deprivation.
	As has been said, the foot and mouth outbreak has pinpointed the close relationship between farming and recreation in rural areas. The balance varies. It is claimed that in the Lake District the ratio of GDP from tourism as opposed to agriculture is 10:1. In other areas the importance of tourism lies in topping up local economies and helping them to stay afloat. If they were dependent solely on farming they might not be able to survive.
	Tourism providers have suffered in ways that have been an eye-opener to many people, particularly in the uplands. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, the position in the Lake District is still dire. Many guest-house owners have not paid their mortgages since March and are wondering what the banks are now going to do.
	But the countryside covers diverse areas. I shall refer to the hill country in England and Wales, where farming has always been hard. In some places there is a great deal of tourism; in others--for example, in parts of mid-Wales and the Pennines--there is little other economic activity. Certainly, without farming subsidies, such areas would have closed down.
	The closure of the mountain areas and hills during the foot and mouth outbreak has shown the importance to the local economy, even in the more peripheral areas, of visits by hill-walkers and climbers. But the extent of that contribution is not well documented. Some research has been done in the north-west Highlands of Scotland, in Wester Ross and in Cromarty. In a more lowland area, it is estimated that the long-distance Pembroke coastal path, which I know well, brings in some £14 million per annum from walkers, so that is important.
	The British Mountaineering Council, of which I am a member, has proposed a research project to determine just how much hill-walkers and mountaineers contribute to the rural economy in such areas and, more importantly, how much more could be contributed if modest, small-scale local and national projects were put in hand. As someone who visits the upland areas frequently as a day-tripper, I can drive into these areas, parking is free, I can go climbing or walking, and then go home again. We may then have a meal at the pub near my home. I am always conscious of the question: what have I contributed to that part of the Pennines or the Peak District in so doing?
	I commend to the Government the paper produced by the British Mountaineering Council. It has already been presented to the National Access Forum for Wales. I shall be happy to provide the Minister with a copy. I ask him to give a commitment that he will at least read it and respond to the BMC's proposals.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for introducing the debate. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough on his excellent maiden speech. It is good to have another person on these Benches who understands, and cares and speaks about, rural issues.
	The dark shadow of foot and mouth is still present. The Prime Minister has talked about it having a silver lining. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough spoke about the work of the ARC-Addington fund in terms of the financial help that it has brought to many people in desperate straits. Such help will continue. ARC-Addington has also started a fodder bank which is helping to meet the needs of those who run out of supplies or are likely to do so very soon as a result of the movement restrictions and the desperate welfare problems still faced by many livestock farmers. The Church will continue to maintain a presence and a ministry, even in the deepest countryside--a ministry increasingly shared between clergy and lay people.
	What is needed is a strategy that recognises the interdependence of farming and local business and tourism. We need viable communities able to sustain schools, shops, pubs and social life. The strategy must allow some degree of continuity and stability. Farming works on a four- to seven-year cycle. It cannot survive without a steady, coherent government policy. The loss of expertise and skill over recent years has been deeply serious: 41,000 people left the farming industry in the two years before foot and mouth struck. In almost every case that represented an individual personal tragedy involving a sense of failure and betrayal of a tradition stretching back over generations. The personal human cost of that change has been very high and is seldom recognised.
	I fervently hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government do indeed have a strategy or at the very least that they intend to have a strategy. The rural White Paper was alarmingly vague about the strategy for farming, and recent signs have been distinctly mixed. The Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett, spoke honeyed words at the conference to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred and at which I was present. However, her speech did not compare favourably with that given by the German Minister, Renata Kunast, which was clear, coherent, passionate and highly specific, inspiring confidence that she knows how to navigate the labyrinthine bureaucracy of Brussels. I am not sure that our own Government have those skills.
	Yet although the words at the conference were encouraging--and other speakers have referred to "encouraging" statements by the Government--at the Labour Party conference there was what was received by the farming community as an abrasive, even hostile, catalogue delivered by the Secretary of State of criticisms of farmers, of their unwillingness to change, and of their obsession with--believe it or not--high prices for food. How ironic, and how profoundly unfair, with farm gate prices at their lowest in real terms for generations and general popular spending on food less than half in percentage terms of income compared with 40 years ago. How can the Minister talk about high prices and criticise farmers for not being willing to change when most of them have been changing as fast as they can in recent years?
	Certainly, we need more change. We need a tripling of organic production. Those noble Lords who were up with the lark this morning listening to "Farming Today" will have heard a wonderful item about organic cider in Herefordshire. But let us have a tripling of all kinds of organic production, more energy crops--I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as usual--but also the generating capacity to make use of them if they are for energy generation; more emphasis on integrated crop management; truly intelligent farming; and consistently high animal welfare standards. In addition, I beg for a menu of environmental and social benefits into which farmers can buy, according to a sliding scale of easily intelligible and carefully targeted financial support. We need countryside stewardship for everyone, without the hurdles that must presently be jumped in order to get into such schemes.
	There are many excellent farmers--imaginative, highly skilled and extremely hard-working. Many care deeply about social and environmental benefits. Last week, I had the privilege to be present at the Silver Lapwing Award ceremony where three farmers received rewards for splendid performance for farming commercially but with excellent environmental results. There are farmers who are willing to change and willing to work. We must have a strategy. I hope that the Minister will give us real assurances about that.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the right reverend Prelate and to listen to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood for initiating the debate and I thank those who have spoken for their broadmindedness in looking at the whole situation while we await the report of the Rural Task Force. Obviously the full impact on rural businesses following foot and mouth and the dramatic fall in income for farmers, tourism and all who live in the countryside will take time to become apparent as debts increase. Some estimates show a figure in excess of £3 billion and a survey conducted by Deloitte & Touche shows a fall in profits of £2,500 a year for an average 500-acre farm.
	It is a tribute to many farmers that they have trimmed their costs in order to live, but there is no room for investment. I follow five generations of farmers. I have not seen a time like this in my memory of farming, and the motto of my family is, "You will leave this earth in better shape than you found it". We find that difficult to accept at this time.
	Both the arable and livestock sectors of farming are existing on subsistence returns, and for many the future looks bleak. However, 15 days without an outbreak of foot and mouth disease is a relief and a hopeful sign. When the Minister replies, can he say, in reply to the question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, what action the Government will take to ease the animal welfare problem that will become apparent in the next few weeks and months? It must be realised that cattle require housing, bedding and fodder and that although the RSPCA, the Addington Farm, the RABI and other charitable organisations are doing their best financially to help areas of need, a hard winter can create real problems for stock and for stock keepers. Now is the time, I submit, for the Government to give help in addition to that voluntary help.
	Before the committees of inquiry which are sitting issue their reports, will the Government give an assurance that they are willing to stop imports of meat from countries where foot and mouth disease exists? Over the past two and a half years, 37,000 tonnes of pig meat have come in from 26 countries where foot and mouth disease exists or is endemic. The phyto-sanitary measures do exist, as approved by the World Trade Organisation, but we should surely take some stringent food security measures, as is done in Australia and the United States of America. I know that measures have been taken but they are not tough enough. That is the only way that we can move towards satisfaction in the future.
	In the wider field the reasons why the economic fortunes of British agriculture are tied to the exchange rate are well rehearsed. In the past five years farmers were eligible for more than £2 billion in compensation, while only £783 million has been paid out. Fifty-seven million pounds is currently available for the arable sector: that is, if it is applied for before the end of this month. The system is destined to cease at the end of this year. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, it ought not to be necessary. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will at least apply for the amount due before it is too late?

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for introducing the debate but I challenge the first point that he made. I think that agriculture has been, and is, the basic occupation of the countryside. I should like to see the noble Lord's evidence that in the 17th and 18th centuries this was not so. The fact remains that one of the most important things that any government can and must do is to feed their people, and if they are going to do so they must ensure food security. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is not in his place because he made that point very strongly; and in case he was short of a political party, I was going to offer him a place on these Benches. I should like also to welcome the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. It is good to have another clerical voice in this Chamber speaking such sensible words.
	Having made my first point, which is that agriculture is central to the countryside and that all the other things by way of adding to it are useful, helpful and worthy in their own right but are not central to the main point, I need to make my second point. The way to improve rural life is to repopulate it with working people. That means far more farms and smaller farms. More farms mean more food produced per acre and more food per person working on them. The one important area where more is not produced is per pound invested. That is one of the places where we have gone wrong over the years. These days that is always ignored in favour of monetary capital. The most important factors are food per acre and food per person, particularly if the land is looked after, as it always is, by small farmers who have their emotional capital invested in the countryside in a way that the big farms which are run by companies in London do not.
	The solution for producing more farms and more farmers is obvious, though not simple to provide. It is to abandon the doctrine of free trade, which is a con trick thought up by Liberal politicians, I regret to say, to feed the urban masses cheaply at the expense of the farmers. Such bribes always bring in their wake a vengeance, and we have vengeance at the moment. It is that farmers are suffering, the countryside is suffering and we are all suffering. We must turn back from our tracks.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, your Lordships are aware of the great problems caused by foot and mouth disease, particularly to the tourist industry. Indeed, those problems have been referred to by more than one speaker. I wish to draw attention to the particular additional difficulties being experienced in the North East of England, and in doing so I declare an interest as vice-president of the Northumbria Tourist Board.
	Tourism in the region generates in excess of £1.5 billion and employs more than 60,000 people, which is seven per cent of the area's workforce. I have drawn attention many times in your Lordships' House and in another place to the fact that the North East continues to have the highest rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom. I say "continues" because the region has had the highest rate of unemployment--ever since such statistics were first compiled. The devastation of coalmining, shipbuilding and the steel industry were blows from which we all knew it would take years to recover.
	Tourism is now at the heart of the North East's economy. Then came foot and mouth disease, which was a serious setback to the progress which had been achieved. Then came a second calamity--the resurgence of foot and mouth disease which, as your Lordships will know, is centred in Northumberland and Durham. So the fight has begun all over again. Although tremendous efforts have been made by the Northumbria Tourist Board and many other organisations in the region, it is essential that the Government should increase their contribution to the area's recovery. Can they, for example, make much more use of Section 10 of the Development of Tourism Act to develop and improve hotels in the region? We believe that our assets, character, identity and culture are different from those of other areas. I hesitate to say that they are better but they are certainly different and are worthy of maximum assistance from the Government in retaining that character.
	To recover from the two body blows which I have described there will need to be large-scale advertising and large-scale marketing campaigns, both of which will be expensive. I have spoken of special problems affecting tourism in the North East. I hope that the Government appreciate, therefore, that special and urgent measures are necessary to deal with them.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, it is a great honour to follow so many knowledgeable speakers. I should declare a particular interest in the subject in that I farm in Northumberland, a county that has been badly hit by foot and mouth and I am also a past chairman of the Rural Development Commission which has now been absorbed into the Countryside Agency.
	I wish to make two points. The first reiterates one made by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. I suggest that before any programme for rural economic regeneration is introduced the first thing to do is to take steps to prevent a further outbreak of foot and mouth. The present outbreak was not caused by some poor pig farmer feeding swill. There is nothing inherently wrong in feeding swill. Indeed, to throw away millions of tonnes of food that is good enough for humans and say that it is not good enough for pigs makes a nonsense of all the arguments for recycling.
	The fact remains that we have a damaging, sloppy and ineffectual meat import policy which allows the importation of contaminated meat from countries that have endemic foot and mouth, or have it without owning up to it. Unless rigorous controls are introduced, undoubtedly we shall face a further foot and mouth disease epidemic 'ere long. It would be a waste of time to introduce a programme of rural regeneration until we have closed the door to contaminated meat imports. I hope we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that steps are being taken to achieve that.
	When I was chairman of the Rural Development Commission we were able to introduce a number of measures to encourage indigenous enterprise, many of which are still in place and are just as important today. However, in pursuing those policies we were deeply aware that the changes they helped introduce were only peripheral to the huge and underlying economic impact of national and EU policies. The real issues, like anywhere else, remain employment laws, the cost of fuel, the rate of exchange, et cetera. One must be careful not to advocate headline grabbing but merely tokenist measures that are basically ineffectual. Village appraisals and post buses are peripheral matters.
	Any strategy to help rural areas--this is my second point--needs to differentiate between those parts of the country where alternative businesses such as home computing and local markets stand a reasonable chance of success and those more deeply rural parts of the country where the basic economy will have to continue to rely on agriculture--areas where tourism is already up to capacity. I was delighted to see that the Minister in the other place, Mrs Beckett, endorsed that in a speech the other day when she said:
	"I recognise the role of agriculture within the rural economy. It remains and will always remain the case that agriculture is a vital, even essential, ingredient in its life and prosperity".
	That is so true of that great industry.
	The problem with our agriculture and, indeed, with agriculture world-wide is one caused by over-production, and in our case over-production exacerbated by an over-valued pound. Over-production has led to the collapse of prices world-wide, prices that do not reflect in any sense the world median cost of production but are dumped market clearing prices in practically all instances.
	The major question remains of how to bring supply and demand into balance, both nationally and internationally. But meanwhile governments world-wide are subsidising their agriculture to prevent it going bankrupt in order to ensure next year's supply of food. I quote from the Farmers Weekly:
	"President George Bush this week signed off another emergency package for his country's beleaguered farmers--the fourth bail-out in as many years . . . The latest pay out means that the US have spent over 30 million dollars (that is over 21 million pounds) in four years in emergency farm support".
	The fact remains that currently one either has to have subsidised agriculture or no agriculture. If food is being sold below the cost of production, it is not unreasonable to ask "Who is subsidising whom?" Is such support aimed at reducing farm output so that supply and demand come more naturally into balance? If we wish to have a sustainable rural economy, we have to have sustainable farm incomes. I hope that this key factor will be at the heart of any plan for rural regeneration.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, the Secretary of State in another place used to have a Lincolnshire seat. However, she lost it and it is depressing and quite frightening that she now believes that farming is an optional extra in the countryside today. It was No. 5 in the list of priorities which she mentioned in her speech at the Labour Party conference. As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, I fear that she will lose out in the next round of agricultural spending. I doubt whether we shall get the extra money available under the agricultural money scheme. The Chancellor is bound to get his own back on farmers in the near future.
	The rural economy today can be transformed only if there is a more flexible planning system--for example, using old farm buildings to accommodate tourists, or even office blocks. I hope that the Minister realises that DEFRA does not have the right to be consulted on planning applications. That is an anomaly when farmers are being asked to diversify. The Minister, when replying to debates, gives us all kinds of answers, but I am afraid that there is little follow-up. I hope that he will follow up that point about DEFRA and planning applications.
	The Government seem to believe that there will be a major shift in the common agricultural policy. The lobby in France and Germany is less strong and less vociferous than it was, but things will change slowly. We shall certainly see in this country a shift from headage payments to acreage payments. However, I was impressed when I got in touch with the local agricultural college in Leicestershire to discover that, despite all the problems of zero farm incomes, the number of people applying to Brooksby Agricultural College is greater than at any time over the past three years. Young people believe that they can turn this country round. Farmers must continue to add value to their own products and sell them to the customer either wholesale or retail. What we must avoid is a subsidised theme park. We must be certain that taxpayers' money is used in a way that Whitehall believes might be useful.
	Over the past eight months the Daily Telegraph has kept us informed about the spread of foot and mouth. It has not always been easy. DEFRA has been on strike in Nottingham and, previously, in Northumberland. I had hoped that the Secretary of State might have given better leadership. However, for the past 15 days there has been no mention in the Daily Telegraph of foot and mouth. We are grateful for the way in which it has kept the matter in the public eye.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I address one narrow point: the relevance to the future of the countryside of organic farming. My points are my own and not those of my party because I want to challenge the common view that organic farming should be encouraged. I am sorry to differ in that respect from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, for whom I have immense respect.
	Organic farming originated in the mystical, back-to-nature philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, who had some unsavoury followers in Germany. It has developed since then, but, as was made clear by the evidence given to the House of Lords Select Committee on Organic Farming, it is still not based on science. Even its supporters acknowledged that anyone looking for logic should not look to the rules of the Soil Association or the UK Register of Organic Food Standards. Those rules are fundamentally illogical and contradictory. They allow the use of some highly toxic inorganic compounds, such as copper sulphate, as well as spraying with the pesticide bacillus thuringiensis, to which the Soil Association violently objects when its gene is inserted into a plant by gene splicing.
	It seems that people buy organic food because they believe that it tastes better, is safer and is better for the environment. That is why they are willing to pay a large premium. Blind tests do not bear out the claim that organic food tastes better. Because it has a short shelf-life, it is fresher than most conventional foods and fresher food tastes better, but it was not found to taste better than fresh conventional food.
	The Food Standards Agency has examined claims that organic food is safer, but found no evidence that it is. In fact, articles in Nature have cited evidence that it can be less safe. There are special risks stemming from the fact that organic farming uses animal waste as fertiliser, which can be a reservoir of enteric pathogens. It has certainly not been as thoroughly tested as conventional food--or, for that matter, genetically modified food.
	The main claim is that organic food is better for the environment. Many people take up organic farming for admirable reasons because they care for the environment. They set out to manage their farms in an environmentally friendly way. It is not surprising that they achieve good environmental results. However, conventional farms that are managed to be environmentally friendly achieve equally good results at lower costs. That was the clear evidence to the Select Committee of the Institute of Arable Crops Research.
	The most thorough study--the Boarded Barns study in Essex--showed that, compared with organic farming, integrated crop management was better for promoting biodiversity and at least as good for bird life, soil quality and mammal and insect life. It was also less costly and used less energy.
	However, even if organic farming is based on gobbledegook and does not achieve the results that are claimed for it, should it not be encouraged because it is more profitable? First, there is no merit in promoting more expensive food if it has no special qualities. The vocal middle class might not mind paying extra, but poor people need cheap food. Secondly, it makes no economic sense to base future agriculture on inefficient production with higher costs. If supply increases, prices will come down, as they already have for organic milk, and many organic producers could soon be left struggling.
	If we based our policy on science, not on mysticism, if we looked at evidence and ignored fashion, false alarms and hypes, we would end subsidies for conversion to organic farming and support integrated crop management instead. We should not spend money on an inefficient form of farming and an inefficient use of land whose main claims have not been substantiated.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, my noble friend has opened this most important debate with his usual ability at a very appropriate time. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough on his speech; he happens to be my Bishop. I thought that his contribution was extremely good and very thoughtful. I hope that we shall hear many more contributions from him in the future.
	A number of areas of the country have been badly hammered by the foot and mouth outbreak--none more so than Northumberland, which I know well and where I farmed for many years. The news in recent days that the outbreak may well be over is most welcome. I very much hope that movement restrictions in the north of the country can be lifted. There is an urgent problem of stock presently on higher ground facing starvation through movement restriction.
	Contributors to the debate have rightly sought to emphasise the need for a long-term strategy for the country as a whole. In that regard, I very much welcome the formation in recent days of a task force in the North East of England. A number of eminent people have agreed to serve on it and a number of eminent organisations are taking part, including the tourist board.
	There is no doubt that the foot and mouth outbreak has been desperately difficult for many people in Northumberland, many of whom I know personally. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, talked about tourism. It was announced this week that the Roman wall in Northumberland, which is probably our major tourist attraction in the north of the country, had 70,000 fewer visitors in the past summer than in the summer before. That is the measure of the effects of foot and mouth.
	A long-term strategy is very important, but I shall concentrate on the immediate short-term problems of farming. The viability of farms has long depended a great deal on their size. There was a time when it was considered in the north of England that 100 acres and a pair of horses would keep a man. That is a long time ago. Just after the Second World War, that figure had risen to 400 acres, with much greater use of machinery. I contend that a tenant farmer now would have to work very hard to make a living from that size of holding. If the recent proposed European Physical Agents Directive, which would limit the time that a man can spend on a tractor to two or three hours a day, is implemented, it will be impossible to make a living from that acreage.
	The future of farming falls under three categories. The immediate problems for larger farms are fewer than for smaller ones. I know of a well organised and efficiently run estate in the north-east of Scotland. When grants were available, they were used wisely. Old buildings were replaced by modern ones and fields were made into workable sizes. There was also some diversification through forestry and sport--shooting and fishing. Larger farms have fewer problems than smaller ones.
	In the second category are holdings that have been in the same family for generations. For such farms, the problems of heavy mortgages are way in the past.
	The third category, particularly tenant farmers, is the most difficult one. Like the right reverend Prelate, I fear for their future. Their holdings are often too small and co-operation is highly desirable. Years ago, as an officer of a county branch of the National Farmers Union, I chaired a committee that looked into the possibility of co-operation on the sharing of machinery and co-operative buying. We did not have great success, but co-operation in those areas is still very important. I very much hope that they can be looked into in the longer-term strategy that we hope will be developed.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for initiating the debate. I declare an interest on several counts. I live in an area of the countryside that has been infected with foot and mouth and I farm. I have a small riding centre to help give tourists and locals a recreation pursuit and I have recently been a victim of rural crime.
	The complex foot and mouth disease regulations have made life extremely difficult. My pedigree Texil rams remain unsold. I was allowed to have some ram lambs carried across a river, but not taken a few yards down a road in a trailer. Yet strange people with dogs can walk along footpaths through fields on either side of, and crossing, the road, and often their dogs are off the lead. Small farmers feel bewildered and frustrated over that. Many of them depended on supplementing their income by providing bed and breakfast accommodation, but that has been virtually non-existent over the past eight months.
	Recently I attended a conference in Settle on the subject of stress in farming. I know that people still living with their stock, which must be fed through the winter, are worse off than those who have had their stock culled. There is much insecurity. The very wet weather over the past year has added to the bleak depression that surrounds the farming industry in the North of England.
	My riding centre has been broken into over the years on several occasions. We have security lights, alarms and double locks, which add to the expense of shoeing, vets' bills, staff and fodder. My handbag vanished two weeks ago in Masham town hall. Nothing that was in it has been found. My diary was in the bag. The entry for Monday, 15th October, read: "Back in the House of Lords". Our house was burgled with three people in it at about 8 p.m. on Monday. They used a jemmy to prise open a window.
	We have no local police in Masham. The police house stands empty. When I was giving details of the contents of my bag to a policeman from Ripon the day after it was stolen, he was called away to a rape case involving a 15 year-old girl in the village of Masham. Rural crime is on the increase. I was told that the police were short-staffed, with many off sick. This deteriorating situation does not help the recovery of the countryside, tourism and rural businesses. The changing situation and the increase in drug abuse without enough crime prevention facilities makes the countryside a dangerous place in which to live.
	I hope that the Government will help and support the countryside so that good morale returns to the police and country dwellers and so that, once more, England's green and pleasant land will flourish.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood for enabling us to have this debate. I start by declaring two interests in this area, both of which are unpaid. I am patron both of the Tourism for All Consortium and of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain. I shall concentrate my few remarks today on tourism matters.
	Increasingly, tourism is seen as part of the answer to supporting a rural economy and its communities. When handled sensitively, tourism can also be a truly creative force in conserving the rural heritage, biodiversity and the landscape on which it depends. However, as others have mentioned today, the tourism industry faces an unprecedented situation--a drop of 20 per cent in business this year. Of course, that is due to the cumulative effect of the foot and mouth outbreak since March and the terrorism attacks in America last month. The Government's response to the crisis caused by foot and mouth was tardy, confusing and inadequate.
	I recognise that the Government now face a very difficult task in helping the tourism industry to launch a recovery strategy in the face of the loss of business caused by the unprecedented terrorism in the United States. The Government will receive my support for measures which make reasonable attempts to address this further crisis.
	The total losses to tourism this year from foot and mouth are estimated to be £4.2 billion. The terrorist attacks are expected to cause a further loss to tourism of £1 billion this year. By the end of the year, we can expect to see 3,000 small tourism businesses under threat of failure. The Tourism Minister has said that we should market our way out of this crisis and that the domestic market is the way to go. I believe that he may well be right in that, but it is not the whole picture; nor is it an easy solution. It will require commitment from central government, local government, all the tourism boards at every level and the tourism industry itself.
	However, one commitment could be made by the Government immediately. They could seize this opportunity to restore to the English Tourism Council its marketing remit. I believe that it is the right time to do so. The industry is not one to whinge about its ills. It states clearly what its problems are and then tries to get on with solving them itself wherever possible. But sometimes it cannot do so all alone.
	In August I was interested to read the report, Rural Tourism: Working for the Countryside. It is a five-year blueprint for the recovery of rural tourism, produced jointly by the English Tourism Council and the Countryside Agency. I ask today: what is the Government's response to that report? Do they agree with me that it offers a sound, visionary way forward for the countryside?
	The report makes it clear that diversifying to tourism from farming is not always quite as easy as the Government like to make out. We must recognise that diversification to tourism is not always possible or even desirable in some locations. As my noble friend Lord Vinson pointed out, market saturation may already exist where tourism is a mature business. Of course, in areas as yet almost untouched by tourism, diversification must always be handled sensitively.
	Furthermore, the promotion of special attractions in remote areas may need help with infrastructure costs, such as transport improvements. Visitors have high expectations of the variety of events and activities which should be available to them and their families within a reasonable distance of their accommodation. Tourism businesses are inter-dependent to a great extent. They cannot be created overnight in areas where farming can no longer be the business of first choice.
	However, the question that I ask today is: what happens to that ETC and Countryside Agency strategy now? Its implementation will require a whole range of organisations and enterprises to be involved, and it requires proper funding. At the moment, the ETC is not funded or staffed to tackle such an undertaking. I hope that the Minister is able to give today the undertaking that the Government will make such funds available.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on bringing forward this debate today. Like him, I live in the county of Cumbria. I myself live in Keswick, at the foot of Skiddaw, surrounded by hill and sheep farmers and various areas of tourism.
	I want to bring two very simple messages to the debate today. They are based on my experience of counselling and advising a large number of people during the early months of the foot and mouth crisis at the beginning of the year. What came ringing through in all the conversations that I had was the feeling, particularly among the farming community, that MAFF--as it was at that stage--was simply not equipped or prepared to deal with the scale of the crisis. Furthermore, MAFF was not revealing to Ministers or officials at a regional level the full story as to the scale of the escalating crisis. The message that MAFF gave to Ministers through the Civil Service structures by way of Page Street was totally at variance with the message that we, as Members of the other place, were bringing directly to Ministers.
	I do not say that that was characteristic of MAFF over many years. MAFF in the county of Cumbria has provided an excellent and superb service. But the reality, irrespective of government, if I may say so, was that at that stage the Civil Service was simply not competent or capable of dealing with the scale of the problem.
	My first message is: let us be absolutely sure that the officials involved in providing a service by MAFF within areas of the United Kingdom affected by crises of a similar nature in the future understand quite clearly that they have a duty and a responsibility to reveal to Ministers at an early stage what is happening in those areas. In the case of foot and mouth, my own view is that, if the department had been alerted earlier with accurate information, many millions of pounds of public money, yet to be spent, would have been saved.
	The second message that I want to bring relates to the tourist industry. I believe that the Government were absolutely right to appoint the North West Development Agency as the lead agency to deal with the problems in Cumbria. Following representations by a large number of individuals, including myself, measures were brought in on marketing and IT, as was an interest-rate subsidy. Such measures were of help to many people within the tourist industry. The problem is that the crisis is changing. Instead of being a short-term crisis it has now become a medium-term and perhaps even a long-term crisis for the tourist industry.
	The demands of the tourist industry are changing and will continue to change. A subsidy regime was introduced to help the industry. The local authority subsidies and, in particular, those brought in by the North West Development Agency, need to be modified to include expenditure on refurbishment and perhaps support for people who are in arrears with VAT, PAYE or, indeed, mortgage payments. Consideration should be given to that matter.
	I understand that the report by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, will be published tomorrow. Perhaps I may say that his was an excellent appointment. I was pleased when I saw news of his appointment on the television screens outside both Houses. I had dealings with the noble Lord some five or six years ago on the agriculture Bill and felt confident then that he would come up with the right solutions.
	I plead with Government to find the money to implement all of his recommendations, irrespective of what they are.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I must declare a lifetime interest in tourism, the rural economy and particularly built heritage, which is suffering from a severe decline in visitors as a result of the crises. It is particularly important to acknowledge that most of Britain's heritage and landscape is man made, evolved over centuries, moulded by good husbandry and by subsequent creation of fine buildings and gardens.
	Britain's historic buildings and the heritage of its towns are at the heart of our appeal to tourists from overseas. Indeed, 40 per cent of all our tourist accommodation is in the countryside. Even before foot and mouth, it was accepted by all that tourist income maintained the viability of our green and pleasant land. Initially the crisis was considered to affect only our agriculture, but through short-sightedness, the Government did not foresee the immediate and devastating effect the message that "our countryside is closed" would have on tourism.
	Tourism is worth four times as much as agriculture as a national earner, and directly employs more than four times as many people. For many years it has received relatively little recognition and only grudging assistance from government. By the end of March, even the Prime Minister was asking people to go back to the countryside. Most tourism businesses have high fixed costs. Tourist venues cost as much to open for one visitor as for 1,000. Consequently, the dramatic fall in admissions has caused immediate local economic difficulties and closures, cancelled repair and conservation projects, and caused staff to be laid off just as the summer season began.
	The lost income from the missing visitors was more than the difference between marginal profitability and survival, or the threat of closure. The rural economy is fragile, as is Britain's tourist appeal. Such schemes of assistance that were finally offered by the Government came too late and offered too little.
	For many farmers, who are desperately seeking to supplement their income, tourism has been seen as a potential saviour. But here, the voice of caution should be heard. Diversification into tourism should not be lightly undertaken. It should be competently marketed and developed otherwise they will succeed only in weakening the tourist industry and cutting the tourist cake too thin.
	Most rural tourism businesses are considered "micro businesses". For rural tourism to thrive, it is essential that the inherent fragmentation of the industry is overcome. There needs to be good marketing and perhaps better information to entice visitors. We certainly need to give more assistance to the regional tourist boards in fertilising the ground.
	The faltering ability of the industry to respond in the face of recent crises has brought into the spotlight one particular failure of recent government policy. I refer to the decision to strip the slimmed-down English Tourism Council of the marketing remit exercised by its predecessor, the English Tourist Board. In times of need, DCMS had to look to ETC to act, which, when set up, was specifically excluded from a marketing role. The need to reinstate the central marketing role is urgent, especially now that the domestic market is of even greater importance until the international circumstances revert to normality.
	As ever, we should congratulate the BTA on the leadership it has shown in overseas marketing and in working with the industry to overcome extreme circumstances. We must ask, however, what is the evidence of the Government's commitment to tourism, especially given the benefits it surely brings to Great Britain. We are aware that the Government are consulting the industry through a variety of newly-established groups, cabinets, task forces, summits, and other miscellaneous entities. Unfortunately, at present it seems to be only talk.
	Just before the election the House of Commons Select Committee published a report on tourism, which states:
	"Recent developments have exposed the problems brought about by the failure of successive Governments to invest in the promotion of tourism appropriate to the structure of the industry and to the revenue benefits to the public purse . . .
	"There is also a compelling case for a fundamental reconsideration of the scale and nature of public sector support for the tourist industry".
	Following the election, we have a new Minister who I gather is consulting industry widely to better understand its needs. So far the solidarity and support has been characterised by his insulting and ill-judged remarks such as, "the industry pays slave wages", that Britain's tourism lives up to its "Fawlty Towers" image, and that its participants are either lacking in vision and ability or are profiteers.
	Does the Minister agree with those remarks by the Minister for Tourism?

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, this debate, and others like it, may put little pinpricks in the shrink-wrapped soul of government before it is microwaved by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, and others.
	We are facing fundamental social and economic changes where a few ghosts must be laid to rest. First, I have always wondered why so many people believe that the ruling classes are wealthy and landed and live in the country. Perhaps the St George on the Bench opposite may stop tilting at dragons and concentrate upon others. Today the ruling class lives in Islington in a house worth £1 million. He pays his labour four times as much as someone in the country and could probably swap that house for 500 acres of land. He would like to have 500 acres of land as well, with white posts around it, non-productive agriculture, the right to ride go-karts with his children, and to keep horses.
	The changes through which we have gone began with the flight from the land to industry. Then there was the flight from industry, but to where? What is the basis of our economy now? We have no industry left in the manufacturing sector. Even the great GEC seems to have disappeared almost without trace. Upon what is the future economy of the United Kingdom to be based? Should it be based upon subsidy or grants? Should it be based upon the increased value of property that has reached exorbitant heights, or upon people?
	The ruling classes, as they were called--I was never privileged enough to belong to them--were peasants. A peasant is someone of any class who lives and works in the country and earns his subsistence through himself and his family; in short, a small family business. If we look at the rural areas, we see that the flight from the land has led to only 10 per cent of people in the United Kingdom living in the country. One hundred and ninety-two countries in the world have a greater proportion of their people living in the country than we do.
	The problem in the country is de-population and lack of productivity. There may be all sorts of problems connected to that. However, we should encourage more people to live and work in the country. That leads to certain measures which governments may or may not take. The Government will probably not now agree to do what I suggest. The whole of the rural area of the United Kingdom is effectively classified as a special development area. Compared to other parts of the European Union, it desperately needs support.
	First, the Government should introduce tax holidays for all those who live in a designated rural area. We could draw a map of that area, should it be necessary. Secondly, they should remove road tax from any vehicles belonging to people who live in such a rural area. That has been done in France. It should be noted that anyone living in a rural area pays far more in fuel tax than the cost of a road fund licence.
	I turn to the desire for outsourcing, the creation of SOHOs (small offices, home offices) and the encouragement from those in inner cities to outsource, which is perfectly possible, in this age of high technology. There are many things we can do, but I declare my interest as a peasant farmer within the EU. I have just received my first grant from the EU for re-planting vines. There is hope that we peasants will stick together; otherwise, what happened 620 years ago--now re-emerging under the Countryside Alliance--the peasants' revolt, may come again.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, this is a very necessary debate as we can see from the number of speakers. It is also sad that we have to keep returning to the recovery of the countryside and rural business because the situation remains so serious. This debate is drawn very widely, as it should be, because we have to cover all the fabric of rural life. Recent events have shown very dramatically how the problems of agriculture quickly become the problems of many other businesses--travel and tourism. I declare my own interest as a director of Whitbread that has a large hotel and restaurant business across the United Kingdom.
	I wish to pose three questions. First, following the disasters of BSE and foot and mouth, what of the future perspective for the control of significant animal disease if it recurs? The British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council are doing a very good job. But we have to concentrate heavily on campaigning against negative perceptions related to animal disease. Secondly, how do we build into our strategy on a longer-term basis the role of farmers as guarantors of the environment, the landscape and the support we give them in that role? Thirdly, what should be the future thrust of policy for rural development that must cover rural businesses and rural amenities? It may cover, but it must go much wider than, the traditional three Ps--pubs, post offices and preachers--that most of us hope to see in our villages.
	The answers are more difficult. First, I deal with the future control of animal disease. I give it priority because we have seen how much the country--not just the countryside--has been damaged by BSE and foot and mouth. We have had the excellent Phillips report that gives lessons for the control of health risks to animal and man in the future. We need to draw upon those lessons. There are a lot of positive elements. One thing that is clear, and it is a very bad conclusion, is that we passed a number of laws that were not rigorously respected. As the Phillips committee dramatically puts it,
	"some members of the feeds trade, being given an inch, felt free to take a yard".
	We can eliminate BSE from the cattle herd, but we need to take account of the bitter lesson that full enforcement, not half enforcement, is an essential element of disease control. On foot and mouth, we need, in letters of fire somewhere, two words only, "Never again". I am pleased that there are the inquiries by Dr Anderson and the Royal Society. We need to concentrate on how we can improve our import vigilance--a number of noble Lords have referred to this point--and how we can limit the disease risk from livestock markets.
	Those are key points for the control of animal disease. As to the environment and the rural landscape, all my life I have been deliberately and resolutely attached to the view that farming--above all, farmers--are exercising an economic activity. We need to put much greater emphasis now on the second aspect, the guardianship of the land, the landscape and encouraging projects such as the Country Stewardship Scheme which introduced 14,000 schemes. I like the idea of a menu of schemes of the kind mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. That is the way forward.
	We need active support for rural development projects. We need maximum devolution to the regions. Above all, in the present difficult situation, we need to be quick on our feet to improve our capacity--regions, local services and private businesses together--to offset the reduction in overseas, particularly US, visitors. More than four in five of the visitors to our rural areas are from our own country. We can increase that figure. Although this is a very serious crisis, it is a real challenge. I think we can make progress on that line. At the same time there are things we can do to diversify activity in the countryside that will help business and tourism; for example, the operation of the planning system, taxing businesses as one trading unit, and so on. There are things that can be done which would be helpful.
	My conclusion is that we may be in a crisis situation but I console myself that the great potential of our rural businesses and landscape has not gone away.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer or as a peasant, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon would have it, and as a serial diversifier. Therefore, I welcome the laudable aims of the Government White Paper last year, Our countryside, our future.
	I concentrate on one particular point in that paper where the reality does not yet match the rhetoric. That is the matter of business rates and the problems they present to small businesses. I take an example on my own farm where I have converted some farm buildings into small workshops and business premises. There are about a dozen businesses, one of which started as a one-man band and is now employing 18 persons servicing the aerospace industry. They succeeded in spite of, rather than because of, the rural rates. I have several others, all start-ups, one-person operations. We have several women working there.
	Without exception those businesses say that one of their biggest problems is the weight of the rural uniform business rate, levied at exactly the same rate as that levied on businesses in towns or business parks--around 43 pence in the £1. That seems to put a complete damper on enterprise. These people are risking their own time, energy, capital and belief in starting a small business that hopefully will develop to bring employment both directly and indirectly into the rural economy which is the aim of the rural White Paper.
	For the rate they receive nothing at all. They receive no water, no rubbish collection, no sewerage, no electric light. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, they get extremely sketchy, if not non-existent, police protection.
	I welcome the commitment in the White Paper to examine ways of reducing the burden of business rates on small businesses. The rating Act 2001 was introduced to give some new relief to agricultural businesses, but that does not go nearly far enough. It gives rate relief only to buildings used for agriculture during six of the previous 12 months. It does nothing for people who want to start new businesses in existing converted agricultural buildings such as mine. There are many others around the country who must be in the same position.
	Can the Minister confirm the proposals in the Green Paper issued last year called Modernising Local Government Finance to give special rate relief to all small businesses, both urban and rural, up to a rateable value of £8,000. On 28th February 2001 the junior Environment Minister, Beverley Hughes, replied in a Written Answer:
	"Legislation to implement these proposals will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows. They are a significant contribution to realising the vision set out in the White Paper, 'Our countryside: the future'".--(Official Report, Commons, 28/02/01; col. 689W.)
	Hear, hear to that! Can the Minister tell the House in his reply or in a letter to me when the Government will introduce the necessary Bill to put these proposals into flesh? Perhaps the answer should not be "soon" which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said early on, but rather more concrete than that.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on enabling us to have this debate today. I declare an interest as the director of an agricultural feed manufacturing and merchanting company.
	Not for the first time in debates on agricultural questions I find myself totally in agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. He is absolutely right. A long-term solution is needed to the problems of farming and agricultural areas. In recent weeks we have seen the Prime Minister developing a creditable status as a world statesman. Is it not time that we saw our Minister of Agriculture, Mrs Beckett, in her new and enhanced role as Secretary of State for DEFRA similarly going about Europe ensuring that at long last we get a grip of the failed, discredited common agricultural policy.
	For years the common agricultural policy has been not much more than a lifeboat which, from time to time, has assisted farmers from crisis to crisis. Foot and mouth has not been the first such crisis.
	The principles are not difficult. The first requirement is that we should tear up the existing common agricultural policy. We should replace it with one which has, in my view, three clear principles. The first is that we should have adequate production of cheap food. Why has it not got through to policy makers that if food is cheap, people will buy and use more of it. That can only be in the interests of farmers and will encourage domestic consumption of domestic production.
	The second principle of a new policy should be an enhanced environment. That will create more domestic tourism and, indeed, more foreign tourism throughout Europe. The third principle, in my view, is that there should be reasonable public access which will ensure that the urban and rural environments have greater understanding of each other's needs and requirements.
	I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to tell us what new initiatives DEFRA has taken with a view to reforming the common agricultural policy.
	The broad Arcadian landscape that I see from the Welsh hill on which I live is now physically divided as never before, on one side of our lane, for several miles, are sheep and cattle as far as the eye can see; the other side, for several miles, has not a single sheep, cow or bullock--they have all been killed as a result of foot and mouth. Unlike Arcadia, mid-Wales contains real people. The effect of what we see from our hill is reality for those people. It threatens the future of the schools, the churches, the pubs and all facets of village life.
	We suggest to the Government that talking of glib solutions is no longer any good. In mid-Wales we had the Development Board for Rural Wales and have the Welsh Development Agency. They have done a great deal. We already have hotels; we have our love spoon manufacturers; we have bed and breakfast establishments; we have caravan sites; we have an unusual museum of sculpture and jewellery, some of which I have seen on the more exotic lapels of some noble Baronesses. We even have a village blacksmith who built the conjugal bed for the new marriage of somebody who is shortly to be joining this House.
	So we need no lessons on the development of rural businesses. We need much more than that--the long-term solution of which the right reverend Prelate spoke. My plea therefore is that we stop this cycle of rescue situations for the farming industry. Let us bring some stability to the rural life of this country and let us ensure that farmers no longer feel the threatened species which they have become.
	Finally, if the Government really want to demonstrate their commitment to helping the countryside, for heaven's sake leave off the trivia of hunting, at least in this parliamentary Session, and let us rebuild rural life.

Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Inglewood for so ably introducing this debate. Especially valuable is the authority with which he speaks of agriculture in the context of the European Union. As always I declare an interest as chairman of a group of Cumbria-based companies concerned with land ownership, farming, forestry, construction, mineral extraction, tourism and National Hunt racing. I have a personal stake in all those companies.
	With a slightly heavy heart I have to express my disappointment with the Government and I occupy precious time doing so because it is important. This is the fourth time I have intervened in debates about the countryside since the first outbreak of foot and mouth. During that time I have asked Ministers more than 12 questions, all of them, I like to think, constructive; all of them, as it seemed to me and others, needing answers. There has never been a single attempt to respond to those questions, either at the time or later in writing.
	Perhaps a powerful Administration like this one, with a huge majority in another place, feels entitled to dispense with normal courtesies, and perhaps the contemptuous rudeness on the part of Ministers is something we should learn to endure without extravagant distress. But that overlooks two important points. The first is that, in democratic societies it has always been the instinct of sensible politicians to lend a special ear to under-represented sectors of the population. That is done for reasons of common decency and to include those who might otherwise be excluded. This Government I fear appear to reject that instinct.
	Secondly, I believe that Ministers in your Lordships' House have a right to expect that those of us who belong to opposition parties give at least a fair hearing to the Government when they are away from here, especially when the Government are seeking to deal with intractable problems of a non-partisan nature. The Minister should know that his apparent indifference, not to say hostility, to rural Britain makes that difficult for us.
	In respect of the management of the foot and mouth crisis, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in a New Statesman interview, appeared to accept that mistakes were made. I do not know what the circulation of the New Statesman is in Cumbria--I suspect modest--but that sensible admission reinforces the need for a full public inquiry, not, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, to punish the Government, but so that next time (of course there will be a next time) a clear policy will be in place.
	More than 1 million animals have been slaughtered in Cumbria, that is 44 per cent of the total killed; Devon is next with 8.5 per cent. In money terms, gross loss of agricultural output through slaughter, at the end of July, was just short of £130 million. Consequential losses amount to between £20 million and £30 million, which includes the support industry. In the current year it is estimated that tourism in Cumbria will have lost £200 million.
	I have always argued that in essence recovery will come through our own efforts and by recognising the need to change--a point made by my noble friend Lord Ingleby. Those features are central to a document entitled First Steps: a proposal for a Cumbria Rural Action Zone: Draft Strategy, which is due to be launched this Friday. It is a powerful document and I pay tribute to the commitment of the many Cumbrians who contributed to it and to the leadership which emerged in the country which has led to a spirit of renaissance.
	I commend the proposals to the Government, not because I endorse every syllable of them, but because they demonstrate that the spirit and the will to recover is very much alive. If the Government show themselves willing to foster that spirit, they do a great service to the countryside and to the country.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for instigating this debate. I declare an interest, as I have many times before, in that I had a farmed forest in the 1960s in Eskdalemuir, which I started on land which had been abandoned for 11 years before I came and the house had been empty for 14. The incomes were really down so at that time there was no future in farming. The markets were in Lockerbie, Langtown and New Castleton. We had a D notice but fortunately it was removed during the foot and mouth period.
	As a result, everyone is looking to the future. In that regard many suggestions have been made in this interesting debate. But obviously hill farmers are having to diversify into new areas like field sports, tourism, environment, fishing, shooting and so forth to add to their incomes. But that means, in the post foot and mouth era, segregation of the visitor from the farm factories; that is, the farmlands. Visitors do not wander through manufacturing factories with dogs. I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Masham, that if we are trying to farm, we should keep visitors separate--and that would require an urgent fencing grant--so that we can re-landscape the farming areas.
	The Minister would do well to clarify the Government's attitude to country sports, such as fishing and shooting. Why should farmers invest in reorganising river banks, managing forests or planting copses, if, through a Private Member's Bill, they are unable to use that land for sporting purposes? A definitive statement from the House on this matter would be very helpful.
	Consideration also needs to be given to the question of second homes, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred in a rather deprecating way. Second homes provide income to the region. Since 11th September many people have given consideration to their second homes perhaps becoming their first homes at some future date.
	In addition, businesses are now looking to relocate to the regions. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, knows--I have previously asked him about it--they will require access to broadband Internet. Broadband communications are essential to the conversion of farm buildings to offices or new factories. If businesses do not have access to broadband communication, as they have in the City, they will not come to the regions, and we shall be left with a bed and breakfast economy, which will be left behind in a post-foot and mouth disease economy.
	The same point applies to children in primary and secondary schools in the countryside. A lack of access to broadband communication, which this Government, when in Opposition, promised would be available throughout the nation, would result in children being discriminated against. That surely is not the intention. If we have to wait another 10 years for BT's ADSL, which I have commended to everybody in this House--BT say that it will not come to Dumfriesshire for at least 10 years--there will be no primary schools left in Dumfriesshire and no farmers in the hills and uplands of Dumfries and Galloway. The hill farmers will have walked off the land, as they did in the 1960s, and they will have to walk off again, for their future will be non-existent.
	I have not seen IT put forward as one of the main points by the Countryside Alliance, the Country Landowners' Association or other similar organisations. They seem to have missed the point. People will not move to the country unless they have proper access to the Internet, on which they can conduct their business and from which they can get enjoyment. That access is not available today. It is required by schools, the police, hospitals, and individuals with second homes in the country who want to enjoy the same access. Where is it going to come from? It cannot come through cable. It must come through satellite access and through enlightened planning permission that allows people to put up dishes. It is essential that Ministers and civil servants should understand what broadband Internet communication is about. One sometimes despairs that that is not fully understood or appreciated when we debate countryside issues.
	I hope that something positive will come out of this debate, rather than the rounded reassurances that we have so often had.

The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I have frequently done in the past, I address my remarks to the West Country and in particular to Devon, where I live and my wife farms.
	Even in those parts of Devon that have been so devastated by foot and mouth disease, there is a huge resilience in the rural community and a determination to rebuild businesses and lives. Due to the sorry record of incompetence and mismanagement that has marred the efforts of MAFF and DEFRA to control the disease, the damage that must now be made good is far worse than it might have been. The Government therefore carry an even greater burden of responsibility to help the rural community to recover and rebuild.
	What has been the Government's response to date? A paltry £11.5 million for assisting business recovery and a miserable £260,000 to help South West Tourism in the massive task of bringing tourists back to the rural areas of the South West; and that despite the fact that the South West is England's largest and most rural region and has been as badly affected by foot and mouth disease, Devon having had the second highest number of cases after Cumbria. Once again, we are the poor relations.
	The South West has an agricultural output more than three times that of Wales and has had twice as many cases of foot and mouth disease. Yet Wales has had more than four times as much Government funding--£69 million, compared with a total of £16 million in the South West--for the foot and mouth disease recovery operation. That is the latest example of the way in which the rural English regions are disadvantaged compared with the devolved administrations. For tourism, Wales has £4.13 per head of population; the South West has just 26p. For economic development, Wales has £55.17 per head of population; the South West has just £18.77. For the promotion and marketing of agriculture, food and drink following the foot and mouth outbreak--an area in respect of which we are in direct competition with our friends across the Bristol Channel--we receive just £250,000, compared with £18 million in Wales. Well done, Wales! But why no equality for the West Country?
	Great plans are afoot in the South West to revive the rural economy on the back of the unparalleled beauty of our countryside and the unrivalled quality of our food. We shall shortly launch a chamber of rural enterprise to represent and take forward the entire land-based sector. In addition, there are proposals to set up an industry body to promote and market food and drink from the regions--an industry in which 3,000 businesses employ a total of 45,000 people; and a further 46,000 are employed in agriculture, where there is also huge potential.
	If those initiatives are to succeed in injecting into our economy the confidence and cash that it needs, we must receive equivalent support to that enjoyed by our competitors. The response of the rural community to the challenge and the tragedy of foot and mouth disease has been as magnificent as the Government's has been mean. My message to Ministers is simple: country people in the South West are determined to lead the recovery, but it is vitally important that the Government should help them to help themselves.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for introducing this debate. The noble Lord made a number of excellent points, ably amplified by my noble friend Lord Carlile, about the external pressures of the WTO and CAP on the countryside and on agriculture.
	I propose to concentrate on what we believe the Government should be doing. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough said in his excellent maiden speech, the Government are either still unclear about the purpose of the countryside or are giving mixed messages about it. The first thing that we need in a countryside strategy is a much clearer indication from the Government of what they believe the countryside is for. We need that message to be given by all Ministers at all times.
	A successful government strategy must address three points. First, it must recognise the differences that exist in the countryside. The countryside is not an homogeneous place, a point made by my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lords, Lord Vinson and Lord Selsdon. Secondly, it must recognise that any strategy needs to be a long-term strategy, a point made by a number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and my noble friend Lord Carlile. Thirdly, it needs to build on local and regional strengths. The Government must realise that one solution does not fit all.
	I deal with the first point of recognising the differences, and I declare an interest as the Vice-President of the Council of National Parks. I speak particularly for the upland hill and remote areas, because they are very different from the lowland areas and face very different pressures. Those areas have been hardest hit because of the link that we in this country have come to understand between hill farming and tourism; but I believe that those areas also offer unrivalled gains if the Government get it right.
	I could spend the rest of my time reading out the 50 excellent recommendations of the task force for the hills, but I believe that the Minister and many other noble Lords will have that report. What is the Government's response to the report and when will they begin to act on its recommendations? There is no better starting place for dealing with upland areas than that report. The report deals, for example, with the reform of commons--and I do not mean the other place but the upland areas. They suffer from overgrazing and arcane legislation which often requires unanimity and makes difficult any application of the environmentally sensitive area criteria. However, a reformed commons regime could be a starting point and a vehicle for the co-operation of commoners for marketing their goods and working together. It could also bring big biodiversity gains. During the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the Government stated that they were interested in bringing forward such legislation, but it has again disappeared over the horizon. In view of the importance of the countryside strategy, will the Minister tell the House whether there have been any discussions about bringing the legislation forward more urgently?
	The noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Williamson of Horton, mentioned other reports. The Government have commissioned a number, many of which have contained excellent recommendations, but we have not seen their implementation. In fact, I cannot think of any which have been implemented in full or any in respect of which a good start has been made. I hope that any strategy will incorporate a firm timetable as regards the recommendations which the Government accept and their enactment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out that the national parks are willing and able to be a blueprint for rural revival because they have the experience of a co-ordinated approach to planning, farming, biodiversity and housing. Each national park could have different policies and solutions, but they will be what works in their areas. What is the Minister's view of the future role of national parks? If he cannot expand on that during the time available to him today, will he come back to the House with information at a later date?
	I had wondered whether we would get through the entire debate without a reference to new technologies and I was most pleased to hear such points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. I believe that without proper investment in the kind of e-technology infrastructure which the Government envisage for urban areas, rural areas will be left in the kind of economic backwater experienced by those areas with no roads and railways at the end of the 19th century. Rural areas cannot make that investment themselves--not even regional government can do it for itself--and it needs to come from national government. Will the Minister tell the House what initiatives the Government are taking to ensure that the private sector is involved? Will they put national funding into this important area?
	Any strategy needs to be long-term. During the summer I travelled around and spoke to different organisations. One of the constant refrains related to the funding of pilot initiatives. Such funding is innovation-driven so that when a good scheme is no longer an innovation--usually after two or three years--the funding disappears. Good schemes which work manage only to get off the ground before their funding disappears. I believe that such funding could be less annually but available for a longer time.
	The funding for the Rural Challenge, for example, was a good idea but a huge sum of money--£1 million--was given to schemes for only three years. The effect was that they have tended to be bricks-and-mortar-based and have often struggled to receive the necessary grass-roots community support. I believe that it would have been better for those schemes to have received £100,000 annually over 10 years and they would have succeeded in establishing community support more thoroughly.
	The England Rural Development Plan offers the Government a good way of setting out their future funding. The Labour Party when it was in opposition and then newly in government stated that it was disgraceful that we had fallen so far down the European league in funding the second pillar of the CAP; that is, the pillar which allows us to have rural development instead of subsidy support. But where do we rank now? Is it more important to the Government; and if so, are they willing to invest more in that? I believe that that is the way forward.
	The long-term view is also about young people. It is about education. Another sadness is that the national curriculum has no space for an imaginative use of the outdoors. I visited many outdoor centres during the summer and it is clearly one of the most memorable things school children do. However, it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience because the constraints of the national curriculum make it impossible for such centres to offer more. The chairman of the Countryside Agency made a sad comment, stating that he did not believe it was possible to change the situation. If the Government are serious about links between urban and countryside areas and want to imbue children with a sense of outdoor excitement, they must start to build an imaginative national curriculum.
	Can the Government build on the strength which exists and move away from the perception, which I somewhat share, of a centralist government who find it difficult to accommodate small populations, small businesses and small schemes? They need to allow different places to have different solutions, as have the devolved administrations.
	In conclusion, I want to echo the plea for a public inquiry into foot and mouth. The disease has involved the loss of £5 billion of public money and the jobs and futures of people across all communities, not only those of farmers. Alun Michael, in addressing the Local Government Association conference in Buxton, said that having a public inquiry would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But I do not believe that the crisis was a nut--it was extremely expensive and it has brought the countryside further to its knees.
	The three inquiries do not address the same issues as a public inquiry. First, three inquiries leave room for inconvenient decisions that were made at the time to slide down the gaps between them. Secondly, a public inquiry should at its best be a catalyst for wider change because everyone who suffered through the crisis and who gives evidence can have a stake in it; people can give evidence, hear the deliberations and understand the outcome. In that way they are signed up to future changes. At the moment they feel that they may be forced upon them in one way or another either by economic circumstance or the Government. Surely the Government would prefer to have a public inquiry which acted as such a catalyst and provided a more optimistic future for our countryside.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, want to thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood for introducing the debate today. His comments about the devastation which the foot and mouth outbreak has had on the Cumbrian community was reflected to me during my three-day visit there some 10 days ago. The farming industry has been in steep decline for the past four years. Some 48,000 jobs were lost between 1998-99 and 2000. Farm incomes are down by 75 per cent to a mere £2,500, or £50 a week, from an average of £80,000 in 1995-96. Those figures from Deloitte & Touche were referred to by my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
	On top of that came the disastrous outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which has seen the killing of 5.6 million animals on some 2,030 infected premises. Dangerous contacts and contiguous culls meant that more than 9,500 premises had every living cloven animal slaughtered. Those figures do not include the 500,000 sheep killed in Cumbria in response to the voluntary cull, the 1 million lambs, which do not count at all, or the other half-million animals killed in the welfare cull. It is a national scandal. Others have reflected today that it shows sheer incompetence on the part of the former MAFF. No wonder my noble friend calls for a strategy of recovery to aid the countryside, tourism and rural business.
	At this stage I should remind the House of my family's farming interests and my patronage of VIRSA, the Rural Stress Network and membership of other organisations listed in the register. All of those interests are unpaid.
	I also welcome and congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough on his very thoughtful contribution. We look forward to hearing from him often in future debates. He reminded us today of the 18,000 families which had received help and the need for farmers to be profitable. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the extra work undertaken by the Churches and members of their congregations throughout this crisis.
	This month's report by Ferguson, Donelly and Anderson in Nature and Keeling and his colleagues in Science on the response to the foot and mouth outbreak makes interesting reading. To paraphrase, speed of action is paramount; the cull policies must be implemented much faster in any outbreak. Animal movements spread disease and the policy must ensure that movement bans are implemented faster in any future suspected outbreak. Vaccination needs to be considered in any policy on the control of animal diseases.
	There is no doubt that the infection is coming to Britain from both third world countries and maybe EU sources. Unless procedures at points of entry are tightened up and adhered to, swine fever, foot and mouth and other such diseases will hit us again and again. A report on "Farming Today" on 6th October indicated that raw meat was still being brought into the UK in great quantities by visitors in personal luggage. I ask the Minister yet again what additional inspection procedures have been put in place since the outbreak. How many more inspectors are employed throughout the country at ports of entry? That question has remained unanswered since June.
	We hear plenty about the need to reform CAP and move away from direct payments for food production. Perhaps more importantly we need to reform the European rules as to how, when and who may examine all kinds of food imports to ensure that the trade in, and the practice of, the illegal importation of suspect food products ceases immediately. How can the Government consider requiring farmers to insure against future diseases if they fail to shoulder their responsibility in these undertakings?
	We have heard again today from my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Cavendish and many others the call for a full public inquiry. I repeat that call. The Government must have a full public inquiry into this crisis. It is surely right that former Ministers and officials are cross-examined. We need to know how they came to the decisions they took and why they were implemented in the way they were. Surely, all we want are answers to make sure that in any future outbreak we benefit from hindsight in formulating a quick response leading to a less adverse impact on the people and animals affected. MAFF's mistakes in managing farmers and their families must never recur.
	The foot and mouth outbreak has affected farmers directly. But many rural businesses have also been hit hard, as we have heard. None of us had realised the dependency on tourism for the health of the countryside. Overseas visitors were frightened to come to the UK, and some of those who intended to visit only the cities also cancelled. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made a very important point in that connection.
	My noble friend Lady Anelay predicted the loss of some £5.2 billion this year. A team booklet on British tourism reflects that in Cumbria alone 18 per cent of its GDP comes from tourism, which relates to 25 per cent of jobs in that county. Clive Aslet, writing in the latest issue of The House Magazine, said:
	"Cumbria has been a war zone that now needs the equivalent of a Marshall Plan to get it going".
	Other noble Lords have also referred to that today. In order to draw visitors back there must be a concerted effort both at home and abroad.
	I have already mentioned reform of the CAP and the rules which govern the inspection of imports. But it is also obvious that in times of trouble individual regions or countries need to be able to impose special measures. It has become obvious that in normal times differences of culture, geography and custom and practice militate against the imposition of continent-wide regulations. No lesser person than the Minister herself, in a speech to the CEA in Ireland last week, acknowledged that policies needed in northern Finland differed from those required in southern Greece.
	Any future strategy to revive the countryside economy must consider the WTO and its probable forward direction. Unfortunately, that is likely to play down the importance of animal welfare and emphasise even greater free trade. Such developments are likely to be at cross-purposes with Britain's intentions on the environment, wildlife, fishing and other policies such as forestry.
	Each nation must feed its people. For the first time for many years this country has suffered a major pestilence. No one denies that farming and horticulture will have to change in order to survive. They will be affected by the negotiations on CAP but must also respond to changes in the UK. There appears to be general agreement that farmers must work much more closely together, and the new farmers' markets are examples of that. But there is room for conventional, organic, specialist and niche markets, as other noble Lords have pointed out.
	Rural business should be about rural people being able to live and work in their locality. Over recent years we have seen some businesses moving out of towns and cities. While that is welcome, some of them continue to employ existing staff with little or no recruitment of local people or use of local enterprises. Local people should be encouraged to go into business for themselves and local authorities should work with them sympathetically, thereby improving the rural opportunities for tourism and business in the market towns, to which several of my noble friends have referred.
	I have been on my feet for some nine minutes and have not mentioned such matters as transport, public services, post offices, schools, doctors' surgeries, utilities, housing, facilities for young people, the environment and the greater use of bio-fuel. These are hugely important. What have the Government done today? They have produced the urban and rural White Papers, neither of which has been debated in this House. Recently, the Prime Minister intervened by setting up the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food chaired by Sir Don Curry. I ask the Minister whether its deliberations will supplant the content of the rural White Paper. The Government continually seek advice but appear to be unable to translate it into action.
	None of us will ever forget the 11th September, but we must still plan ahead. The future consists of the short, medium and long term, to which many noble Lords have referred. In the short term, businesses dependent on tourism are going bankrupt, livestock particularly on hill farms is threatened with starvation, and some breeding cycles are already being disrupted. In the medium term we face shortages of home produced meat, fodder and grazing land next year. Very worryingly, in the long term we risk handing to others the ability to feed our own nation.
	The countryside has been in crisis and that has affected both town and country alike. This crisis must be overcome. I and others like me are concerned by the absence of political leadership, the proliferation of consultation and the total lack of coherent action.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, not only for initiating the debate but also for his thoughtful contribution. I know that the noble Lord, as other noble Lords, has immediate experiences in the stricken county of Cumbria which has had the roughest end of recent months. The noble Lord was not only able to deal with that but also to challenge us all to look to a longer-term and more viable future.
	Perhaps I may also commend the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. The right reverend Prelate showed an enormous commitment to the countryside and knowledge thereof, which I am sure will inform future debates.
	Most noble Lords' contributions, at least in part, have been hugely constructive and helpful. However, I must introduce a slight jarring note at the start of my speech. I also take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. It is difficult for the Government, who are attempting to do their best to deal with a crisis in the countryside, to face criticisms that we do not care and that we are deeply hostile to the countryside and to country people. It is perhaps understandable that that view is held among the distressed farming population in areas that have been hit seriously by foot and mouth and its knock-on effects. I do not think that it is appropriate, even in political knock-about in this House, for such views to be repeated.
	The Government are deeply concerned about the state of many areas of our countryside. We have expressed our commitment on many occasions not only to the countryside and to rural people as a whole, but specifically to the development and return to prosperity of, in particular, the agricultural sector.
	As other noble Lords have found necessary, I also need to deal with the shadow of foot and mouth before dealing with anything else. It has been an immense problem for the Government and for the countryside. We are now at a situation where there is a glimmer of hope. For the last six weeks the disease has been contained in two areas--Northumberland and Cumbria. During the whole of the outbreak we are for the first time experiencing a period where there have been no new cases for over a fortnight.
	In England and Wales we have 104 counties and local authorities which have been declared FMD free. The whole of Scotland is FMD free. Therefore, the broader part of the countryside is beginning to return to something like normality. The vast majority of premises which were covered by restrictions have now had those lifted. Nevertheless, we must keep up our vigilance and our guard. It has been necessary to introduce a difficult system of control on autumn movements of animals to ensure that what is inevitably and necessarily a massively increased volume of animal movements is subject to strict controls. That has understandably caused difficulties for farmers and for trade. Its introduction has had some difficulties. I think that everyone recognises that we need a balanced approach to this matter in order to allow necessary movements and also to bring in a regime which does not encourage a further outbreak of the disease.
	For that and other reasons we are not there yet. I remind the House that in the 1967 outbreak there was a period of 29 days without an outbreak. There were four months of outbreaks beyond that. So we are not home and dry yet. Nevertheless, it is important that we begin to look at the way out and at cushioning measures over the winter. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and others referred us to the important work of the Addington Fund. The Government back that fund. They will intensify their backing of that organisation which brings fodder to those animals which are still effectively locked up due to restrictions. We need to address the immediate problems, not only of farmers but also the rest of the countryside, of getting through the winter.
	It is perhaps too early to draw the full lessons of this outbreak. A number of noble Lords have put down a few markers. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has mentioned the problems with communications. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, emphasised the need for more vets. There are other issues in the administration of this outbreak which I readily accept have not gone as well as they should. Serious lessons have to be learnt by DEFRA and by the other authorities and indeed by the farming community.
	The regulation of animal disease in this country needs to be addressed. The effectiveness of the enforcement also needs to be addressed, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. The noble Lord also said that the message for any investigation as to what we do in the future must be "never again". But we will be faced with the challenge again.
	I have some sympathy with those noble Lords who say that we should have greater concentration on import checks and greater priority on those checks. But in the global market we will always be faced with some challenge. Even those countries with far more robust forms of import checking than ourselves occasionally have outbreaks. The point is that when an outbreak occurs, they suppress it much more rapidly than we were able to do on this occasion. So although we can take measures to ensure that we minimise the risk of disease coming in, we also must take measures to ensure that the spread never occurs as rapidly and as disastrously as on this occasion.
	In terms of learning those lessons, I should like to knock on the head the argument that, because the Government have said that we will not have a formal public inquiry, with its full quasi-judicial overtones and procedures, we have something to hide. We have nothing to hide. That is not to say that we have not made mistakes. I have already admitted to that, as has the Secretary of State. We are being open about this. Those noble Lords who might have been in another place this morning will have known that the Secretary of State had a full two-hour session in front of the Select Committee on precisely how we managed the outbreak. We intend to be open about this matter. We do not believe that what is normally seen as a public inquiry with lawyers sitting at one's elbow is the best way of getting the full truth.
	We believe that the inquiries being made under the Royal Society and under Dr Ian Anderson--and every one has full access to them--are a better way of showing not only whether the way that science and veterinary expertise was deployed in the control of this disease and the way in which the Government administered that expertise was correct, but whether the rules and regulations of Britain and the EU covering the control of disease are the ones that we should be following in future or whether we need a radically different approach. We intend to be open with that. We hope everybody will have access to it. We believe, both here and in another place, that Parliament will certainly have its use to make matters clear during that whole process and at the end of that process.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question because he made a very interesting and important statement. Can he say whether this inquiry will have the right to call people such as ex-Ministers and so forth and ask them directly what the questions were? As I understand the situation, one can have that with a public inquiry but not with any other form of inquiry.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the inquiry will request the presence of whomever it wishes. Former Ministers have made it absolutely clear that they are prepared to give evidence to whatever inquiry is appropriate and established. So the answer is, yes, their evidence will be taken into account. The question of the precise procedure is a matter for these independent inquiries and their chairs.
	That is the sad background of foot and mouth disease against which we have this debate. Of course many of the problems of, in particular, agriculture and parts of our countryside more generally predate foot and mouth disease but are now very much focused on the consequences of foot and mouth disease. It is true that farmers, particularly those with stock, in areas still subject to restrictions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made clear, are probably the most obvious victims of this. But there are a great many other victims--small businesses, tourism and other parts of the rural economy--which have suffered.
	Perhaps I may deal first with the agricultural sector. It is appropriate and timely for us to take a long-term view of the future of agriculture. The Government are being asked for clear signals. We have established the independent Policy Commission for Food and Farming under Sir Don Curry. It is intended that the commission will mark the first step towards producing a new consensus on the future of food and farming in this country. At present there is no consensus. Indeed, even in our discussions today many different views have been put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, saw one future in which all agriculture shifted to small farms; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford put all his money on organics, which somewhat offended the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. Even in this House, all shades of opinion and view are held.
	Perhaps I may underline what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. "One size fits all" is not a solution for agriculture. The common agricultural policy, which in effect adhered for most of its existence to such a policy until the most recent reforms, now finds that it is no longer appropriate, either in Britain or in Europe.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have to say that I do not put all my eggs in the organic basket and I agree with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, on that subject. I am far more keen on pursuing long-term strategies addressing integrated crop management. Perhaps the Minister misunderstood what I said.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the right reverend Prelate. I was too much taken by his advocacy of Hereford organic cider. I became completely carried away.
	As I have said, we do not have a consensus on the future of agriculture. I think that it is important to put agriculture into context, as did my noble friend Lord Judd at the beginning of our debate. Instead of seeing agriculture as an activity subject to environmental pressures, the future of agriculture both for its landscape and production should form part of a broader environmental and rural economy, both in its processes and in its context. For that reason, we need to look at our methods of food production.
	I would take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he said that the Government take the view that the production of food is not important. That is not our view. I have stated that several times, both in this House and elsewhere. Indeed, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who saved me from having to quote myself in the course of my remarks. I and my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have reiterated our wish to see a viable, sustainable, diverse food production industry in this country, embracing livestock and arable, as well as horticulture, if it is not already covered by arable farming. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed out that that industry already stands on its own two feet and has a great future.
	We want to support all sectors of agriculture, but they are subject to change. They are subject to change in the nature of subsidy, in consumer demand and from environmental pressures. Agriculture is always changing; it does not remain the same. It has changed since I was a child and in 10 years' time it will not be the same as it is now. That will be the case irrespective of CAP reform or individual government policies. We need to seek other outputs for current agricultural activity. Some of those are close to agriculture, such as the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for biofuels. I share his enthusiasm for those developments. Biofuels and other industrial uses for crops form an important part of the jigsaw which I hope that the Policy Commission on Food and Farming will address.
	We need to look also at diversification into the wider rural economy. It is important that we recognise that food production comprises only a part of the equation, albeit an important one. How self-sufficient we should be in food is now perhaps an old-fashioned question. I certainly do not agree entirely with the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that it is the most important question. We produce nearly two-thirds of our food ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, stated that 80 per cent of the food that can be grown indigenously is produced by our farmers. That is a remarkable record. Whether it is the right figure is a matter of contention. But it is not the only issue. More important is the question of how we should utilise the assets of the nation's farming skills and experience, as well as our landscape, to maximise their benefits for the population as a whole. Part of that question concerns food production, part concerns landscape, part concerns recreation and part is agriculture-based but covers diversification into other activities in our rural areas.
	The traditional forms of agricultural support are more than creaking; they are breaking down. CAP reform is central to our strategy. It should be the aim of us all to see that the CAP is altered from its present basis--aid offered largely in the form of production subsidies, albeit changing types of subsidy--to something which supports the rural economy as a whole. I was surprised when a noble Lord commented that Margaret Beckett has not been prominent in this effort. She has strongly advocated the point that our central aim must be to focus on the negotiations covering the mid-term review of the Agenda 2000 aspect of the common agricultural policy. Serious negotiations on that will begin by the middle of next year. In the long term, we seek a complete change in the policy.
	The CAP is not the only way in which taxpayers' money has been put into farming over recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and others asked about agri-monetary compensation. Over the period of this Government, we have committed £1.7 billion, including about £700 million of agri-monetary compensation, over and above the contribution made by the CAP. Whether we go further on that at this juncture is a matter for pause; we are now considering the matter further. Clearly a great many other pressures are being exerted on the Exchequer. Whether further compensation is the best use of taxpayers' money at this point is something to which we must return. For that reason, I cannot give the commitment which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was looking for.
	Furthermore, I cannot give immediate commitments on other aspects, including the regional development pillar, a matter referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The size of the UK allocation from the RDP has been disappointing and we are working on that. We want to broaden the scope of projects and expenditures that can be met under that heading. Changes can be made, even without complete radical reform of the CAP.
	Diversification also forms a part of the jigsaw. Complaints have been made about the burden of regulation and planning restrictions. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, spoke of planning restrictions which affect diversification of agricultural enterprises. I would ask the noble Lord to wait for a week or so, at which time my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will have something to say publicly on that matter. Obviously it is an issue which needs to be addressed.
	The longer-term recovery of farming has to be seen in a wide context. Sir Don Curry's commission will play a major part in that. Broader rural recovery depends on the Government completing the process initiated by the publication last November of the rural White Paper, to which my noble friend Lady Gibson referred; namely, consolidating policies for market towns, rural transport and affordable rural housing. This last point was taken up by several noble Lords in their contributions. The social dimension of the recovery of the countryside is just as important as the purely economic and agricultural dimensions.
	Tourism now forms by far the biggest rural industry and is one that we must seek to sustain. By that I do not suggest that we move from agriculture subsidy dependency to tourism subsidy dependency, but a little help along the way may be given to businesses to help them to become viable in the medium term. My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have given their full support to the tourist boards and other interested groups currently examining the issues.
	In the immediate and more local context, tomorrow will see the publication not only of the report of my noble friend Lord Haskins--I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has given an unreserved and totally blind commitment to its conclusions--but also of the wider report from the Rural Task Force. It will deal in particular with the worst-hit counties of Cumbria, Northumberland, North Yorkshire and Devon. I would prevail upon noble Lords to await the outcome of that report. It will form an important, albeit short-term, indication of the Government's commitment.
	We need to develop the tourist industry, just as we need to develop rural businesses as a whole. Furthermore, we need to address the particular problems of the countryside. However, let us not write off the countryside as a failure. Before the foot and mouth outbreak, large sectors of the rural economy were doing relatively well. It is not true to say, except in the remotest areas, that rural England is becoming depopulated. In some cases, the opposite is true and it can be a problem. Businesses and people are moving into rural areas at a rate which sometimes those areas find difficult to accept.
	There was a prosperity in much of rural England. We hope to get back to that position quickly. We believe that we can. We already are in many of the areas which were not seriously damaged by foot and mouth.
	I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, reminded me that the House of Lords I entered four years ago was full of peasants. His description of the social origins and the social basis of rural England is partially true, but nevertheless it is a little limited because every profession now lives in rural England: farmers, certainly; agricultural-related trades, certainly; tourism, certainly--but every single profession now lives in rural towns and rural villages. We are more one country than many people think. The rural part of this country has been hit hard in recent months and we all have a responsibility to help it, but in the long run we all face the same problems.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the time allocated for the debate is more or less complete. We have had some good contributions and it would be invidious to single out any particular one. Each has in turn complemented the other to create a comprehensive discussion about the issues we have been debating. As is customary on these occasions, all that is left for me now is to beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Child Abuse

Earl Howe: rose to call attention to the damage caused to families by false accusations of child abuse; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, the abuse of children, whether violent, sexual or emotional, is a criminal and wholly repugnant act. As a society it is incumbent upon us to do all that we can to protect children from such abuse and to ensure that the perpetrators are dealt with in an appropriate fashion. Nothing I am about to say should be interpreted as a desire to underplay or belittle such conduct. Indeed, quite the contrary.
	My concern can be summed up very simply. It is that alongside the worrying numbers of genuine child abuse cases there is a parallel cause for worry, which is that many innocent people are being wrongly accused of child abuse and whose lives in consequence are being turned upside down without due justification.
	I should like to talk today about two of the triggers for false accusations. The first one is a phenomenon known as "recovered memory". Noble Lords may remember that about 10 years ago a number of cases were reported in the press of families being torn apart as a result of adults--usually women--making retrospective accusations of childhood sexual abuse against a member of their family. The accused person--most often a father of hitherto impeccable character--would protest his innocence. A common thread in many cases was that the grown-up daughter had undergone a course of psychotherapy, during which she and her therapist had apparently unlocked memories of previously unremembered traumas in childhood.
	In 1998 the Royal College of Psychiatrists set up a working party under Professor Sydney Brandon to look into the whole question of recovered memory. Its unequivocal conclusion was that when apparent memories appear to be recovered after a long period of amnesia there is a high probability that those memories are false. A key passage of its report reads as follows:
	"Despite widespread clinical support and popular belief that memories can be blocked out by the mind, no empirical evidence exists that supports the existence of repression or dissociation".
	Despite the acute dangers highlighted in that report, and clear warnings issued by responsible professionals, there are still some committed followers of the more extreme theories of memory repression who continue to practise and lecture. The British False Memory Society has records of hundreds of cases of the kind I have outlined. I myself have received several dozens of letters from sometimes quite elderly parents who, after having enjoyed a normal and loving relationship with a daughter, suddenly find that following psychotherapy that daughter has suffered a profound change of character, making accusations against a father or stepfather about childhood abuse alleged to have been committed many years earlier. Quite often she cannot recall any details of the abuse, but she is so convinced of the truth of the memories that she severs permanently all connection with her parents.
	That is tragedy enough, but when the police become involved the injustice can be magnified. When allegations of this kind are made, it ought to be clear to all, in the light of the Brandon report, that guilt should not be taken for granted. The consequences of a miscarriage of justice are so grave that the utmost care is needed before there can be any question of criminal charges being laid.
	However, many cases are still occurring that are characterised by an uncritical acceptance by the police and social workers of claims about newly remembered abuse. The possibility of false memory is often either ignored or overlooked. Indeed, the lack of any objective evidence of abuse seems to be overridden by a need to protect the person perceived as being the victim.
	Those criticisms also apply, incidentally, to cases in which abuse is alleged retrospectively against a care worker or teacher many years after the supposed event. The police often assume guilt from the outset and the burden of proof is effectively reversed. I regret greatly that lack of time prevents me from exploring this important aspect of the topic more fully.
	I believe that harmful psychotherapeutic techniques are wreaking havoc with people's lives. It is a great pity, to say the least, that the psychotherapy bodies are unable to speak with one voice about this issue. Indeed, it has been put to me that they are often unwilling to investigate malpractice when it is brought to their notice. Regulation of the profession will be a step in the right direction, but for as long as the profession fails to confront the damage that can be done, my fear is that such damage will simply continue unchecked.
	I come now to the second major trigger for false accusations that particularly concerns me, and that is the condition known as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy or MSBP. MSBP is one of a number of terms used to describe the fabrication or deliberate creation of illness in a child by a parent or carer. The existence of such a syndrome was first put forward in the 1970s and received a good deal of publicity a few years ago during the trial of Beverley Allitt, a nurse who was subsequently convicted of murdering several children in her care. In the past 10 years or so the MSBP theory has been widely promoted in this country and is a firm feature of social work training.
	The term MSBP is used to describe two types of behaviour. In the first type, a parent--most often the mother--invents an account of illness in the child, for example by reporting falsely that the child is suffering from chronic diarrhoea. Often this leads to the child being subjected to a range of unnecessary clinical tests. In the second type, the parent is claimed to have deliberately induced illness in the child, for example by poisoning. Again a referral to a doctor often leads to extensive clinical tests which are necessary only because of the parent's interfering actions. MSBP therefore encompasses a wide range of behaviour, from an excessively anxious parent inventing an illness or exaggerating quite minor symptoms, right through to inflicting deliberate physical harm.
	The danger of such a broad spectrum of behaviour being packaged into a single portmanteau term, MSBP, is that in the hands of those who are not sufficiently trained or experienced to know better, it is a label that is all too easily applied without due care. This is all the more true when one considers the so-called profile of characteristics that are said to mark out a person suffering from MSBP. These characteristics include such things as privation during childhood, repeated bereavement, miscarriage, divorce and past health problems. An over-intense relationship with the child and a desire to be the perfect parent are other supposed markers.
	Regardless of the fact that there are very many perfectly innocent, sane people around who might have such characteristics, the very idea of a tell-tale profile of this kind is an open invitation to apply the MSBP label without properly looking at what may or may not be happening to the child. Put at its simplest, there is all the difference in the world between a Beverley Allitt, whose severe personality disorder led her to murder young children, and a mother who invents reasons why she and her child should visit the doctor. Yet under the all-embracing banner of MSBP, and in the hands of the untrained, the two are treated as being practically indistinguishable. It does not matter whether one calls the condition "MSBP" or "factitious illness by proxy", or by any other name. The point remains the same.
	In quite a number of the cases I have encountered, when an allegation of MSBP has been made, the mother, in protesting her innocence, has pointed to unexplained symptoms or behaviour in her child. She may have raised her concerns about these with the doctor on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, the act of denial is itself seen as a marker of MSBP--a "Catch 22" if ever there was one. But the danger of having, as it were, an identikit profile of an adult considered likely to be an abuser or potential abuser is that judgments can be made too much by reference to perceptions of the parent and not enough--sometimes not at all--from a proper and thorough examination of the child. I have been made aware of cases where MSBP has been alleged without any outward sign whatever of harm to the child, beyond some odd or atypical behaviour. Often, the allegations have been pursued doggedly by social workers over a long period, and it is only after months of anguish, when children have been placed on the "at risk" register and proceedings have been brought in the family courts, that the parents have been completely exonerated--exonerated, that is, if they are lucky; but exoneration, when it comes, is frequently by way of a specialist diagnosis of an unobvious clinical condition in the child: a congenital disorder, a birth injury, an allergy, autism, Asperger's syndrome, an adverse reaction to a vaccine, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, and so on.
	I have the highest regard for the social work profession and I admire the dedication and commitment that the vast majority of social workers bring to their often difficult jobs. But I suggest that it takes a lot more than a recently acquired social work diploma to be able to diagnose a condition such as MSBP and to attribute symptoms in a child to the wilful actions of a parent. Dare I say also that there are some paediatricians who are not qualified to do this? If MSBP is a valid term at all, it identifies what amounts to a serious psychiatric disorder. That kind of diagnosis should be left to those who are properly trained to make it; namely, qualified psychiatrists.
	We should remember that all the indications from research are that MSBP is very rare. But it is worth noting that the scientific basis for MSBP as a recognised condition is, at best, thin. As a theory it rests on a small number of anecdotal cases. It has never been tested under clinical conditions and none of the evidence has ever been approved by a national medical or scientific body. Even the connection with the Beverley Allitt case turns out on investigation to be illusory. An official inquiry into the Allitt case rejected any association between MSBP and the murders that Allitt committed. Despite that, the supposed relationship between the homicidal Allitt and MSBP has remained firmly embedded in the public consciousness.
	None of this is to deny that there are people who intentionally set out to inflict harm on children in a covert fashion. Where real physical harm is inflicted secretly on a child there is no difference between this type of violence and any other sort. The point, however, is that before jumping to conclusions about MSBP, social workers and doctors ought to look at what is actually going on, or not going on. They should investigate the family's circumstances in the round, including all relevant medical information, in a professional, informed and unbiased manner. They should carry out an assessment of the family's needs in accordance with Section 17 of the Children Act. Quite often, that process is hardly even attempted.
	The damage that can be done by the mere suggestion of MSBP is enormous. Chinese whispers begin--what one researcher has referred to as "the first gossamer breath" of rumour--about unexplained illness in a child and about a fussy parent. These can swiftly turn that parent into a potential murderer in the eyes of the community. Members of the family become local pariahs. Social workers are sometimes not clever at handling situations of this kind. Children are made to live in constant fear of being parted from their parents. The climate is like that of a witchhunt in which the voice of reason and all sense of proportion is lost.
	There is a considerable weight of published research on these matters. It is this that gives me good grounds for believing that we are dealing with a substantive problem. In that context, the Government's recent consultation document on safeguarding children in whom illness is induced or fabricated, despite some laudable features, is deeply flawed--principally because it fails almost wholly to acknowledge that the topic is highly controversial and that erroneous diagnosis is a real risk.
	There are several lessons to be learnt from the points I have outlined. Clearly, lessons need to be learnt about the training of social workers, and about making it far more skills-based than at present. There is a good case for making social workers personally and legally accountable for what they do. Presently--perhaps uniquely among professional people--they are not.
	There is a need to improve the monitoring and inspection of social work and the ways in which resources are directed by social services departments. The channelling of considerable resources into chasing the falsely accused and the pursuit of flimsily based allegations have the effect of removing resources from where they are really needed; namely, in the active prevention of real physical violence, such as was inflicted on Victoria Climbie. We need to consider whether the rights of parents to present evidence at child protection conferences should be strengthened in some way. We should attempt to determine whether the complaints system is adequate in cases where a number of agencies, not merely the NHS or social services, are involved. There is also a need to examine the law: for example, to ensure that it is the duty of local authorities, in the first instance, to help and support families in difficulties. Somehow we need to strike a better balance.
	I hope that the Government will take these issues in hand and examine them seriously. It is a subject which a Select Committee, either in this House or in another place, could examine to advantage. Having made a personal study of these matters, I believe them to be of deep significance for the well-being of countless children and families up and down the country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Earl to discuss a number of issues relating to child protection work. I declare an interest as a retired member--with the emphasis on "retired"--of the Association of Directors of Social Services. However, I do not have a social work qualification, so I bring to this topic a degree of detachment or ignorance--depending on one's point of view.
	I have a good deal of sympathy with the concerns raised by the noble Earl. When I was a director of social services I had direct experience of the kind of obsessive behaviour to which he referred by way of an NHS consultant with a total attachment to anal dilation. It took a huge effort by social services, the police and others to remove that person from child protection work. Therefore, I can identify with much of what the noble Earl said.
	I share the noble Earl's concern over false or recovered memory. However, it is an extremely difficult area to regulate. It sits in the complex area of what transpires between a therapist and an unhappy person. Some therapists in the US in the 1980s, and in the UK in the 1990s, have undoubtedly taken the area of sexual abuse and used it to convey a belief to their clients that it is at the root of their unhappiness. The unhappy person then uses the idea to satisfy his or her own needs as much as anything else. It is a serious and difficult problem.
	Having acknowledged many of the problems, however, I am not totally convinced about the noble Earl's suggestion of a way forward. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the current situation and identify some of the strengths in present methods of dealing with the issues surrounding false allegations. They are much stronger than the noble Earl acknowledges.
	I have seen on a day-to-day basis what social workers have to deal with in the area of child abuse and the management and the multi-agency context in which they work. It is not a pretty sight uncovering layers of physical, emotional or sexual abuse within families. This is the sordid end of family policy upon which most people prefer not to dwell. Those who perpetrate abuse inevitably lie and deceive; it is in the nature of the problem. Social workers are called upon to exercise extremely difficult judgments. I have found that most people prefer the position of 20/20 hindsight, rather than recognising some of the things that social workers must deal with in difficult situations.
	Because protecting children from abuse presents hugely complex problems of detection, assessment and remedial action, we do not at present leave everything to social workers. That is why we have established systems of multi-agency sharing of information and assessing that information, which involves social workers, health visitors, teachers, doctors, police and others pooling their information and then taking agreed action. Despite individual cases that go tragically wrong and capture newspaper headlines, this "working together" system of child protection has served us very well as a country. WHO data comparing homicide rates for all children aged 0 to 14 show the rate falling from 66 million to 27 million per year between 1974-78 and 1993-97. In the US, those homicide rates have increased by about 50 per cent. We are second only to Sweden in our low rate of child injury deaths, so it is not a failing system. We are actually picking out a very large number of vulnerable children, and dealing with false allegations in that context.
	We have not only required social workers--and, indeed, other professionals--to operate in a multi-agency way when dealing with child abuse allegations; we have also placed them within a management hierarchy that determines the resources available and the nature of their training and support. Social workers do not have the professional independence of doctors. I do not believe that we can give them that independence in the system that we are choosing to operate in this country. If they are given too many cases to handle, or have too little training and support to enable them to cope with the complexity of their cases, that is not primarily their fault. It is the fault of the managers who manage them; the councillors who determine the local resources for child protection in social services departments, and--uncomfortably--the government departments that largely determine national policy on the length and character of training for social workers. It is interesting to note the finding of a new report produced by the Social Services Inspectorate and the Audit Commission on failing social services departments. It is not social workers who take the blame: the report actually attributes the blame to failures of management.
	Despite the complexity of some of the issues with which social workers have to deal when they handle child abuse cases, we have decided as a matter of public policy that much of this work can be carried out by a generalist social work profession. If we want to improve the situation, I believe that we must look at the training and the resourcing of child protection work. I hope that my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who is not with us for today's debate, will, in his current inquiry into the tragic death of Victoria Climbie, take account of these wider issues when he makes his recommendations.

The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is to be thanked for raising this important issue. There are, indeed, cases of false accusations of child abuse. They are distressing and they can be very damaging to families. We are therefore right to be concerned. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that we would do well to be even more concerned about our failure as a society to respond adequately to the issue of abuse itself. Adults can speak for themselves; children often cannot.
	The notion of "false accusations" deserves some critical examination. It is often used to refer to cases in which an investigation does not lead to a criminal conviction. But we know a great deal more now than we did only a few years ago about the abuse of children and young people. We know about the skill and cunning of many abusers, the powerlessness of children and young people, the difficulty that we have in listening to them and the difficulty that people experience for very many years in speaking about traumatic experiences, together with the inherent difficulty of securing convictions in situations where it is very unlikely that there will be other witnesses.
	We also know that there is a great deal of hidden abuse. When convictions are secured, it is common for several--often a large number--of other incidents to emerge. Very many cases never come to court, even though there is a moral certainty that there has been abuse. I can remember a case where a priest was brought to trial. Two boys were involved. The prosecution outlined the case. One boy gave evidence, but the other, the younger brother, panicked and would not go into the witness box. The case collapsed. The man in question went around saying that he was not guilty. The police knew, and I knew, otherwise.
	A debate of this kind must not be taken as a sign of any weakening in our institutional and corporate commitment to make the interest of the child "paramount"--to use the language of the Children Act. We must not forget that the much-criticised child protection teams (police and social services) have a statutory duty laid upon them by Parliament to investigate wherever there are grounds for suspecting abuse. If I may speak for myself, I have learned the hard way that when I receive allegations about a priest or a Church officer, however flimsy they may appear, I have a duty to refer them to the police or to the social services. It is very hard for a bishop to feel that he is shopping one of his clergy, but it has to be done. That is because questions about trust between a priest and a bishop have to be subordinated to issues of trust between families, especially children, and the Church.
	No one doubts that the experience of being investigated is thoroughly unpleasant and can be traumatic for everyone concerned. I have seen individuals and families terribly hurt by the experience. There are malicious and vindictive individuals who make false accusations. But the fact that the process is hurtful and the fact that accusations are sometimes false do not add up to any reason whatever for not investigating accusations of abuse against children and young people when they are made. Accusations are not false because they are denied.
	But one factor that does cause unnecessary hurt and damage is the length of time that is taken both in investigation and in bringing cases to trial. Sometimes this is a matter of incompetence, sometimes a matter of administrative muddle, but more often a matter of inadequate resources. My own experience, though limited, is that the police are very good, but that the social services, while including excellent individual officers, are often understaffed and demoralised. Because of staff shortages, cases are not followed up quickly enough and staff with insufficient experience, through no fault of their own, are put in charge of complex and difficult cases. Our social services have an essential role to play in the defence and protection of children and families. We depend on them. If they are demoralised, we have to ask ourselves who is responsible for undermining their confidence and their competence. We have to take steps, for everyone's sake, to put matters right.
	The issue of child abuse is very serious. It is most important that we do not allow ourselves to become diverted into throwing away the progress made in recent years. There is a danger that people who are unaware either of the extent and depth of the problem or of the professional sophistication of most experienced child protection teams may be misled into supposing, "Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far". It has not. Child abuse is hideously common. It is not confined to any one class, race or gender. Abusers are very good at hiding their crimes. People must be protected as far as possible from false accusations, but not at the cost of weakening in any way our paramount duty to protect and to listen to children and young people.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to take part in a debate on this very important subject. I should declare two interests: first, as a barrister, I have conducted prosecutions and defences in some extremely serious child abuse cases. They include some of cases which I know the noble Earl has in mind from his research, and which have given rise to controversy. My second interest is as chairman of an independent review that will report next March to the Welsh Assembly on the safety of children in the National Health Service, which has relied to an extent upon work carried out in the past by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. That will be a very full review of all the connected issues.
	I am concerned that this debate should have a proper balance. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate sought to take steps in that direction.
	Anyone who has sat in court--and I hope that the noble Earl has taken the trouble to look through case papers and to sit in court through some trials--and listened to damaged adults giving evidence of terrible things that happened to them 20, 25 or 30 years ago cannot underestimate the importance of something being done to bring closure to those cases.
	I shall comment on whether what we do is the right way of achieving that in a moment or two. That prosecutions are justified in many cases is self-evident from the very large numbers of pleas of guilty which have been recorded in the majority of child abuse cases. People do not plead guilty, knowing they will receive long terms of imprisonment, without being guilty on the whole.
	There has been criticism of the way the police obtain evidence. Detective Chief Superintendent Robbins of Liverpool is on record as saying that the police adopt a quite different approach to obtain evidence in these cases, but his remarks have been totally misunderstood. How else are the police to obtain evidence save by asking people in an even-handed way without creating prejudice if anything happened to them when they were in an institution years ago of which they wish to make complaint?
	When cases are brought to court we have a system which is called jury trial which enables people like myself and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who also has great experience in this field, to test the evidence and to present it, to call expert witnesses and to explore precisely such issues as recovered memory syndrome, which have been raised by the noble Earl.I have done that in particular myself in only one case. I would challenge him to tell the House how many cases there really have been in which recovered memory syndrome has been relied upon by the prosecution as evidence towards conviction. I believe there have been very few--probably fewer than five in this country, and possibly no more than one or two.
	It is very important that the House should not think that absolutely any memory that comes back is the result of recovered memory syndrome. It is a term of art and refers only to memories which have been recovered as a result of a form of therapy which, as the noble Earl said, is largely discredited in this country. That is why it is not relied upon in court.
	The noble Lord, Lord Warner, mentioned anal dilatation. I do not believe that there has been a case based on anal dilatation ever in a criminal court in this country, certainly not in the past 10 or 15 years. It was discussed in the Cleveland abuse inquiry and was thoroughly discredited then; and anyone in practice has seen repeated statements by a celebrated doctor from Manchester, Dr. Raine Roberts, in which she supports the view that you cannot rely on that kind of evidence at all, ever, ever. With great respect to the noble Lord, to raise anal dilatation in this debate is to talk about ancient history that does not apply to the present time at all.
	Again, regarding Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, can the noble Earl tell us how many prosecutions have been brought as the result of a false diagnosis of this syndrome and, if so, whether that diagnosis was incapable of challenge in court? I do not believe that he can refer the House to any such case.
	In the minute or so left to me I should like to put forward a particular view, which may be of assistance to the House, based on my experience of spending many months in court dealing with these cases. I believe that the criminal justice system is a very blunt instrument, especially for dealing with events which occurred 20 or 30 years ago. I am not sure that making people go through giving the evidence of what happened to them is cathartic at all. I have certainly seen very little evidence of catharsis: I think it may be quite the opposite. Child abuse is quite as much a problem as a crime. I would raise the question: do we really achieve much by sentencing people to 10, 12 or even--in a case which I am pleased to say I prosecuted--18 years' imprisonment for child abuse? Does that really serve much of a purpose? Possibly we should take a fresh look in an attempt to find a different way of closing these cases which would help to resolve the problem for the future and bring closure to the victim.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I think it is important to underline the fact that this debate is about false accusation of child abuse and the damage that that can cause to families. I put the emphasis on that because I want to talk primarily about it, but at the outset I would make clear what I am sure is the view of every noble Lord involved in this debate: our wholehearted condemnation of any form of child abuse. Obviously we must do everything we possibly can to ensure that action is taken to prevent that or to deal with it when it does arise in the most effective and efficient manner.
	I very much support the thinking behind the NSPCC's "Full Stop" campaign. For example, it is most important to provide child protection and family support projects and to give children someone to whom they can turn, someone in whom they can confide away from the immediate home circle, which is possibly the origin of their anxiety, unhappiness or distress. When children are frightened they sometimes do not want to talk about their fears; so it is better for them to talk to a third person independent of their own environment.
	However, we must be warned by the growing weight of evidence that the experts in the social services, the medical profession and the police can get things tragically wrong. It arises either because they have been conditioned to believe that everything the child says has to be true or they fail to interpret correctly the physical symptoms they may be examining. What is most dangerous of all is that they might have a pre-conceived presumption that abuse has taken place. If so, the child is then subjected to suggestible questioning designed to substantiate that opinion.
	They appear to be too ready to jump to a conclusion on the flimsiest of evidence. In one or two cases I have heard about, when the police are brought in they sometimes trawl the neighbourhood to seek corroboration for that so-called evidence.
	It is well known that children can become unhappy for many reasons. There may be trouble in the home, problems at school, jealousy, anxiety brought on by physical changes in their own body or simply by being different from their peers. They might perceive themselves as being too tall, too small, too fat or too thin, and might find themselves unhappy for those reasons. They will then crave attention and in the process of craving attention they will deliberately put themselves into trouble and might even inflict harm upon themselves.
	I have met several victims of false accusations: teachers and social workers. Some of them are in prison, some have served prison sentences and all of them have had their reputations completely destroyed. Some have maintained their innocence to this day and others have been proven innocent. I will concentrate on one particular family which I know about, where the child became ill and the doctor advised that she should have a certain form of hormonal drug treatment. Her condition deteriorated and the parents were then advised to have the child referred to a psychiatric hospital unit. More drugs were administered and the child was subjected to questioning. Elements of abuse were brought into the questioning and the experts decided that the father was responsible for the abuse. The experts then visited the family but did not use a shred of common sense. They did not study the circumstances of the family or realise what a loving family situation was there. Instead, they threatened to remove the other children unless the father was kept away. Finally, the child herself was kept away from the family for several years--what amounted to institutionalised kidnapping. In the end no case of abuse was found and yet there was no redress whatever for the family or for the innocent victim and not a word of apology from anyone in authority. The family and, more importantly, the child have been deeply damaged.
	I support very much what my noble friend said from the Front Bench. I hope that all professionals involved in child abuse cases will proceed with caution and first study the family circumstances. They and, above all, the police involved in these cases should be seekers of the truth. Truth is in the best interests of the child.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I declare two interests. First, I am a qualified social worker and, secondly, I am the interim chair of the General Social Care Council.
	Listening to some speeches in the debate I begin to feel that social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Society is quick to condemn social workers for not taking action. "How could they have missed that obvious abuse?", we ask in the tragic cases of Victoria Climbie and Lauren Wright. On the other hand, inquiries as to whether children may be in danger of physical, emotional or sexual abuse are seen as interfering in family life and with the rights of parents, and are therefore unacceptable.
	Of course it is right that we should be concerned about false accusations and I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter. But in our anxiety to protect parents let us please take care lest, to borrow the right reverend Prelate's metaphor, the pendulum does not swing back to the horrendous situation in which I worked as a social worker 30 years ago when child abuse was simply not acknowledged. In fact, when I once raised with my senior officer my anxieties about three small boys having been sexually abused by their parents I was told "to go away and take my dirty mind with me". The memory of those three small boys--now, no doubt, fathers themselves--and my failure to protect them because sexual abuse was a no-go area, haunts me still. Therefore, we must be aware and beware of throwing out babies with bath water.
	I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for acknowledging the dedication and commitment of most social workers because they are--I believe that we should acknowledge this--a very easy group to take to task and even to pillory. It is interesting that the criticism about social workers is often stronger, and certainly more self-righteous, than any reaction we hear to doctors, nurses, teachers and clerics, although in child protection cases those professions are often equally as involved. We also conveniently forget that doctors can close their lists if they have too many patients, that teachers can send children home, or even close the school if they do not have enough teachers, yet no social work department can ignore a report of a child being abused, however overworked and overburdened it is.
	We know that social workers should be there to protect children, to support elderly people and to organise community care for those who have been discharged from hospital, but do we really know anything of the conditions under which they do that? How many of your Lordships have been into a household where no cooked food is ever prepared or eaten, where the notion of there being a responsible person to get the children up and off to school does not exist, where the only purpose anyone in the household has is that the next drink or the next "fix" is available, no matter how, where no notion of privacy, or of there being things children should be prevented from witnessing exists, so that any kind of drug taking or sexual activity takes place in front of children? Have any of your Lordships been to houses where children are routinely brutalised and abused? As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, reminded us, most of us prefer not to admit that these things even exist, let alone have to deal with them. Yet for most social workers, often young and inexperienced, these are day-to-day issues. They are faced with the knowledge that changes in human behaviour are hard to bring about, but that social workers are expected to do so.
	Although I defend social workers--your Lordships will no doubt say, "Well she would, wouldn't she?"--I do not for a moment want to suggest that no improvements can be made. That is why the Government have recently put into place the most far-ranging set of reforms ever seen in the social care world. They have set up the National Care Standards Commission which will inspect all social and healthcare services, including residential establishments and domiciliary care agencies. The other body they have established, of which I am the interim chair, the General Social Care Council, has been eagerly awaited for about 25 years. It is the first ever regulatory body for the social care profession. It will establish codes of conduct and practice for social care workers, set up a register of approved practising professionals and regulate and support social care education and training about which your Lordships have expressed concerns. We aim to provide leadership for the profession, to be the champion of good practice and the guardian of standards. We aim to raise the profile of the profession, to improve its image and to put social care as firmly on the political agenda as health currently is. Once the register is established we shall be able to receive complaints about social care workers and take appropriate action if necessary, including striking them off the register. Social workers themselves will be the first tranche of workers to be registered.
	I remind your Lordships that every criticism which is made of those who work in this field sends the already low morale of an undervalued profession plummeting down. The GSCC intends to improve recruitment by increasing public confidence, championing good practice and challenging bad practice and improving the public image of the profession. Social care workers are in a unique position of responsibility working with some of society's most vulnerable members. We in the General Social Care Council aim to ensure that we can recruit and retain a skilled and well qualified workforce so that there will in future be fewer opportunities for criticising and many more for praising this unjustly maligned profession.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is disturbing to say the least that only 12 years after the carefully considered Children Act became law its arrangements in some respects of child protection are having the reverse effect of what was needed. My noble friend has brought together a far wider collection of facts than that to which he spoke this evening. He points out that out of a smaller number of children being put on the child protection register, a higher proportion are now going into care than used to be the case. Above all, in relation to this debate, no fewer than 160,000 cases of child abuse a year are alleged, of which only 40,000 go to a case conference and only 25,000 result in children being put on the register.
	I want to make one point only and I make it as an outsider who has not been involved in the system at all. In identifying what must be done it seems to me that it is important that the Government should not be bamboozled by the detailed, sometimes dubious and often conflicting theories and explanations offered by those who have the job of thinking about these problems and by the lobbying groups in the background.
	It seems to me that what has to be accepted first and foremost is that the system we have is simply not robust enough to withstand the pressures under which social workers, the police and, to an extent, doctors now have to operate. The pressures come from the media and from an increasingly anxious public. It is not easy, alas, to lessen those pressures. It is a fact that newspapers and television compete by means of ever more shocking headlines and lurid reporting and, of course, nothing is more shocking than the abuse of a child, proved or alleged. The good side of this is that nowadays we are all more vigilant in our local communities and that organisations such as ChildLine exist. The bad side is mounting public anxiety which, as we all know, rises sometimes to near hysteria and frequently seeks a witch-hunt.
	Whatever those in charge of the various parts of the system say, the prevalent atmosphere is very frightening indeed for the social workers and police who have to make the initial decisions of what to do in families when abuse is first alleged. Common sense and legislation may say that they should talk with the parents and the child, offer support and keep in close touch, but it is all too easy to picture the headlines and the letters to the local paper if things go wrong and to play safe by recommending taking the child away.
	Even the more senior social workers who later chair case conferences are not immune from pressure. Solidarity with a junior colleague is attractive and it is tempting to uphold the original decision.
	I apologise to the knowledgeable people who have spoken for over-simplifying. I do so to make the point that the strong public emotion that surrounds social workers puts unfair pressure on professionals who are not equipped to withstand it. That fact above all leads to some of the suggestions that my noble friend has made in his document. He suggests that better training for social workers and the police is crucial. Perhaps there should be more stringent selection of those involved. The person who chairs a case conference should be independent, not from one of the agencies involved in the case. There should be closer monitoring, not, as at present, by advisers, but by inspection of how resources are used. Lead responsibility for investigations should be taken by legally qualified teams. Perhaps social workers should be personally liable in civil law for negligence. To reduce public irresponsibility, there might be legal sanctions against malicious false allegations.
	Something has to be done in general about the problem. I hope that the Government will not be bamboozled by all the detailed issues, but will see the problems clearly. Children who go into care needlessly suffer unnecessarily from it. About 120,000 innocent adults who are accused every year need not suffer.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing this debate. I echo all the condemnation of actual abuse of children. I declare an interest as patron of a number of ME associations. I shall restrict my remarks to children suffering from ME. My sister is a social worker, but I have not involved her in any of my parliamentary work.
	I first became involved in the subject three years ago. I was approached by a paediatrician who was very concerned about the wellbeing of a boy who had been diagnosed with ME. I shall not go into detail because, as I have been told repeatedly, Ministers cannot intervene in individual cases. Time is also restricted.
	Like the noble Earl, I have had a large number of letters from parents and grandparents accused of child abuse. Their children or grandchildren have been put on the "at risk" register, taken into care or made wards of court. What I read and have been told profoundly distresses and disturbs me. I am reminded of the witch hunts of previous centuries. This time, the victims are frequently nice middle class families whose only fault is to be concerned about their child, who has ill-defined symptoms from which he or she does not rapidly recover. For various reasons, some social workers--I repeat that it is some, not all--are not prepared to consider that those conditions might be organic. Suspicion leads to referral, which leads to a huge investment in social services, health services and court resources. There is no presumption of innocence, as there is in other similar situations, and there seems to be no requirement for social services to prove guilt.
	A terrible injustice is done to the families involved. Virtually without warning, the parent or parents find that they have been unjustly and unnecessarily investigated under the child protection proceedings of Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. Somehow, the Act has been so misconstrued as to enable some social services departments, paediatricians and organisations such as the NSPCC to abuse their powers, through misplaced zeal and ideology or through sheer incompetence, to create tremendous distress and psychological damage to parents, children and the wider family, sometimes destroying the family structure. There is no measuring the levels of anxiety or the harm done to children and their carers while the whole weight of the law is brought to bear on them.
	Even when accusations of child abuse against a parent or parents have subsequently been withdrawn, often after prolonged and costly legal action, the stigma of being branded a child abuser by the local authority remains with the parents. Once a social services referral is placed on their Samson database, the details remain for ever, no matter what the outcome of later inquiries. The referral becomes common knowledge in the local community. Those who work with children, either as carers or teachers, are refused employment and those who have been active in the community or in voluntary work find that they are no longer required, especially if children or young people are involved.
	These are people who have been proved innocent, yet they are treated like criminals. What is more, their sentence never ends. Their child, who is wrongly perceived as having been abused, is pitied. Parents are afraid to seek medical treatment for themselves or their children. If they are brave enough to go to the doctor, their complaints are often dismissed as somatisation.
	I know that many social workers, doctors and voluntary workers do wonderful work with seriously deprived children and their families. I know that they bridle against the incompetence of a small number of their colleagues. We need to think again about what we expect from social workers and to ask whether we are expecting too much. The communal hysteria that is generated around child abuse must have an effect on those who work with children. Are we being reasonable in our expectations? I think that perhaps we are not.
	When I originally asked for an inquiry, I had no idea that the problem was so widespread. I am grateful that the Minister in another place has agreed to meet me with some of the parents concerned, but I fear that that may not resolve the problem. There is a need for an inquiry to resolve the problem, even if it is a Select Committee inquiry, as the noble Earl has suggested. Abused parents need to be able to tell their stories. Solutions need to be sought and these dreadful injustices must be put right as far as possible. There needs to be a cleansing.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, when a subject such as child abuse is raised, I am minded to see a parallel with the dreadful events of 11th September, when the sheer dreadfulness of the event has meant that many topics that are in some way connected are in effect taboo. The situation is similar, in a somewhat different way, with child abuse. The subject raises such strong emotions that objective discussion is in many ways inhibited. That is why my noble friend Lord Howe has done the House a service in initiating a debate in which such frank and informed discussion is possible.
	It is widely agreed that facts relating to possible cases of false accusations of child abuse are notoriously difficult to get, but an experienced lawyer in the field has made two remarks to me. First, in a case of false accusation, a decision the wrong way either way ends up as a disaster for the child. Secondly, he reminded me of the saying, "Once an abuser, always an abuser".
	Any inquiry into the subject reveals many different and often contradictory impressions of different social services departments. On the one hand we have the Climbie case. On the other hand there are authorities that say that the Children Act is working well and many cases are largely resolved without recourse to the courts--a key plank of the Children Act. Some critics will say that Section 17 of the Children Act--the initial assessment--is hardly ever used, but others will say that they use it many hundreds of times a year.
	Some social services departments appear to be consistently good, while others are consistently bad, but few, if any--good or bad--will not have a significant number of vacancies unfilled. Recruitment for the profession is not good and it does not enjoy high public esteem at the best of times. Nor is it well paid. That is why we particularly welcome the information provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, about the Government's initiative. Add to that the universal complaint, if not of under-funding, then certainly of inefficient use of resources, and it is a depressing situation.
	It has been said rightly that in potential child abuse cases preventive measures are better than reactive action after the event. My noble friend Lord Howe drew attention to that. But the preventive approach is inherently more expensive--the social services are shooting at moving targets. With limited resources of money and manpower, the preventive approach goes by default with all the unsatisfactory outcome that that entails. Examples of that have been cited in the debate.
	Therefore, I am saying that many of the scandals about which we have heard can be traced back to a shortage of resources to perform the work adequately. While they cannot in any way be excused, it is as well to remember that that is frequently a contributory factor.
	I take the opportunity in this debate to pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations which play a part in the fight against child abuse. One such organisation of which I have some knowledge is the St Michael's Fellowship. However, it is one of many similarly admirable organisations.
	St Michael's was formed at the turn of the last century to assist what were euphemistically called "fallen middle-class women". Typically, it organised adoption for the baby and arranged for the mother to be trained for a career. Now it is involved at the hard end, where parents and children are sent by social services to be accommodated in one of the St Michael's houses under close supervision. Many of those cases are of suspected child abuse, and that is why I mention it.
	At St Michael's, specialised treatment from, for example, social workers and psychotherapists is made available as required. At the end of, usually, three months, an assessment is made as to whether the child should be taken into care. The aim of the organisation is to make the right decision for the child in the longer term. That decision is made under conditions of close observation, and it is hoped that the possibility of false accusations of child abuse, of which we have heard this evening, will be minimised.
	Sadly, institutions of that type are comparatively rare. However, even with a capacity as modest as 30 cases a year, serving all the London boroughs, there are frequently vacancies at St Michael's due to the inability of social services to fund the residential cost. Sadly, that serves as a further reminder of the funding crisis to which I referred earlier.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not share the impression that I gained from the speech of the right reverend Prelate that, because of the horrendousness of the effects of child abuse, we should pay any less attention to the horrendousness of the effects of false accusations of child abuse. Nor do I share--I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place--the impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the problem lies in cases that reach the courts. It appears to me that the problems lie in cases that do not reach the courts and in what happens in the months and years before that stage is reached.
	With regard to the question raised so aptly by my noble friend, my feeling is that things do not feel right. There is too much pain, and too many of the expressions of pain feel real and justified. The outlying situation is one in which we could reasonably expect there to be a witch hunt.
	Child abuse is a particularly nasty crime and one about which I feel extremely strongly. I would impose penalties on child abusers that this House would not contemplate. It has devastating effects on the children concerned. It is extremely hard to detect and prosecute, and abusers habitually deny any involvement in it. It raises great fear and concern among the public to the extent that occasional outbreaks of mob violence take place and, certainly among the media, rabble-rousing.
	Professionals, too, have over the years consistently shown their ability to lose a sense of balance and professionalism. I lost trust in the NSPCC a few years ago when it ran an advertising campaign claiming that one in eight children is subject to child abuse. The NSPCC cannot see that child abuse is a term which should be reserved for the serious abuse of children, which is far too common. Its claim would suggest that 100 of your Lordships had suffered child abuse and that perhaps 50 of your Lordships were child abusers. That is so far from reality and reason. It is very important that such an organisation maintains a sense of balance and professionalism.
	Within the prosecuting professions, if I may call them that, the succession of ideas from anal dilatation to recovered memory and, currently, Munchausen's syndrome by proxy create a very difficult situation. Faced with someone who is determined to pursue an allegation of child abuse, it is extremely difficult for professionals to gather together information, to resist pressure, to calm people down and to form a reasoned debate in a case conference. Great public concern and passions and diversions aroused in the profession do not create an easy atmosphere in which to operate.
	I am particularly disappointed that the Department of Health should have published its consultation document as it has. The department has made great strides under this Government in evidence-based medicine. I applaud it for NICE, and I applaud it for doing the things that have needed doing for a long time. But here is an example of the Department of Health publishing a document which simply is not based on research or proper consideration. I hope that the department will recover its balance in this matter.
	I believe that this is an area which demands our attention. We should expect the professional systems which deal with these extremely difficult cases to have high standards, to be open, to be subject to review and to provide a situation in which it is possible for the accused to have real rights. I am most encouraged by what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said about what she and this Government are doing. I hope very much that matters will lead in that direction.
	I want to pick up two particular points. I should be encouraged if it were possible for the accused to be given greater representation at case conferences. I believe that if a case conference had a professional present to look after the interests of the accused--be it a lawyer or anyone else--that would tend to hold the level of rationality and proper professionalism of the conference at a consistently better level than is sometimes the case.
	Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I do not like the practice of trawling. One can imagine it applied in a totalitarian society where the police might offer people £1,000 if they were able to give evidence against me that I had said something rude about the Government. It is too much of a temptation, particularly where the people being asked are themselves criminals or damaged people for one reason or another. It invites false accusation, especially when there is no penalty for making a false accusation. I believe that such a technique should be used with a great deal of care and be subject to the type of supervision which might be possible if an independent element were introduced into case conferences.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I want to speak about a case which involved a woman called Sally Clark, a woman who may well have been falsely accused of the ultimate child abuse; namely, the crime of murder, and, in this case, double murder. I know that I am changing the debate slightly but perhaps your Lordships will bear with me.
	Noble Lords may recall this case at the end of 1999 because it attracted much media publicity. Mrs Clark was accused of killing her two infant boys, Christopher and Harry. She was convicted and is now serving two life sentences.
	I declare a personal interest. I do not know Sally Clark but I do know her father, Frank Lockyer. Mr Lockyer is a retired police divisional commander. He is not a close friend but is one of those people one meets in one's lifetime who makes one proud to be British and restores one's faith when sometimes it lapses. In these days, when we hear all too frequently reports of police misconduct, Frank Lockyer stands out as the total antithesis--a fine policeman of total integrity. He is a man who has lived his life with absolute faith in the legal system which all in this House represent, but he is a man who today is totally devastated, convinced both as a police professional as well as a loving father that the British legal system has committed a terrible injustice.
	As stated by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, a fundamental tenet of our judicial system is that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. When a family suffers the unbelievable tragedy of two infant deaths, the pathologist may say that each individual child died of cot death. But increasingly our police and prosecution services are treating such an occurrence not as a tragic coincidence but as a double murder. In practice the mother is treated as being guilty of those deaths unless she is able to prove her innocence to a jury's satisfaction.
	Sally Clark is a typical young woman of our age. She is a solicitor, married to Stephen Clark, who is also a solicitor. She bore three sons: Christopher, who died aged 12 weeks, and Harry who died 14 months later, aged seven weeks. Their third son survived, thanks to hospital care in the early weeks. He is nearly three. She was convicted of murdering Christopher and Harry because of a series of false accusations.
	Mrs Clark was originally advised to plead guilty to infanticide on the grounds that if she did so it would be highly unlikely that she would receive a custodial sentence but, as she has said, she refused to lie. She was charged with murder because Professor Michael Green, one of the country's leading eye experts, certified that Harry, the second dead child, suffered from shaken baby syndrome. For 20 months that is what everybody believed. To add to the confusion, prosecution expert pathologist, Dr Alan Williams, changed his opinion on the cause of death of the first child, Christopher, from natural causes to smothering to death. Mrs Clark was charged with double murder.
	The day before the trial began, Professor Green signed a new statement saying that he was sorry, but he had made a mistake. There were no retinal haemorrhages and Harry did not have the classic signs of having been shaken. Defence expert, Professor Phillip Luthert, who encouraged Professor Green to admit his terrible mistake, said last week on national television that he fully expected the case to be dropped and that Mrs Clark would be set free when the prosecution case collapsed. But the prosecution case did not collapse. The prosecution team thought that they could still win the case if they switched Harry's cause of death from shaking to smothering. They did and they succeeded. All the prosecution experts who at committal had supported shaking now said that what they had found was consistent with smothering. I am not a lawyer, let alone a criminal lawyer, but I find that conclusion baffling. I say that because I am informed reliably that there is no known medical test to prove that a baby has not been smothered. So, how could they have said that he had been?
	The case was a minefield of medical and legal gobbledegook. Jargon was thrown all over the court and it was impossible for anyone except the experts to comprehend what was said. The jury must have been totally confused until, out of the blue, one single fact was introduced by the prosecution which sealed Mrs Clark's fate. Professor Sir Roy Meadow, a leading authority on child abuse, told the jury that the chances of there being two innocent cot deaths in any one family were in excess of one in 73 million. How did he reach that figure? He multiplied the chances of one cot death--one in 8,600--again by 8,600. That is interesting, but it is mathematical nonsense.
	The jury probably did not understand the ins and outs of a highly technical case but they certainly understood how to interpret betting odds. People who play the National Lottery have no problem in understanding clearly the basic principles of probability theory. As noble Lords will imagine, the tabloids, with their instinct for the jugular, had a field day. Every newspaper in the land was plastered with that headline-grabbing number. The Clarks know of 40 families who have suffered the tragedy of two babies dying from cot deaths. How does that square with the assertion that was made? Not particularly well. It is not surprising that Sir Roy Meadow has since refuted the statistic.
	However, the story gets worse. The Court of Appeal rejected Mrs Clark's appeal. It said that juries take no notice of statistics. I think not. The truth is that that mistaken statistic of one in 73 million continues to haunt the case. Now there is a possible breakthrough. It appears that a team in Manchester has isolated a gene which could be the cause of inexplicable cot death. Now it is being said that if both parents carry that gene, the chances could be as low as one in four.
	I know that I have gone over my time. In conclusion, perhaps I may say that we hope for a successful resolution to this case.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, the distressing story described by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, reminds me of my intention to mention sudden cot death as another trigger to add to those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howe. In New Zealand there has been a breakthrough in the prevention of cot deaths as a result of changes in the mattresses used for infants. I understand that fire-retardant mattresses can set off an unfortunate chain of events which can lead to cot deaths. Since that change, over the past five years, there have been virtually no cot deaths in New Zealand. That seems to me to be a striking statistic. It might even be helpful in dealing with the distressing case described.
	That indicates clearly the danger of false accusations. I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for introducing the debate. The fact that there is real child abuse, which we all abhor and detest, does not mean that we should not consider those innocent people who may be accused and deal with them as fairly and expeditiously as possible.
	I have tried to think what it might be like for a loving and innocent parent suddenly to find himself or herself in a welter of accusations. That must be a complete nightmare and something about which one could not think with any degree of belief. We owe it to such people to do the best we can when investigations are being carried out. I rather liked the suggestion that there should be a friend or supporter in a case conference for an accused person. There should certainly be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is the normal manner of our judicial proceedings but that seems to get lost in these proceedings. I understand that if a prima facie case of abuse is of such a serious nature that one cannot afford to wait, that that should take precedence. However, that is not always the case. It is important for natural justice to be observed.
	Furthermore, as has been mentioned by one or two noble Lords, there may well be a role for outside charities. There has been criticism of the NSPCC by my noble friend. I have connections with that organisation. My understanding is that the NSPCC is now involved far more in preventive work and support for parents rather than simply engaging in inquiries leading to prosecution. If, as I understand, social services departments are under severe stress, it seems reasonable to make use of charities such as the NSPCC, which has a wealth of expertise. I hope that that is a matter which the Government, in considering the future of social workers, will consider closely.
	It also seems to be a prudent and sensible suggestion to have an inquiry by a Select Committee. That could be by this House, which I believe would be admirably suited to do that; by the other place, or by a Joint Committee, if that were considered a good idea. I do not think that we can leave things as they are. This is all much too serious. We need to be concerned not only with child abusers, whom I would dearly like to strangle, if I am allowed to make such an impolitic remark. It is equally important that we support those who are innocent of any wrongdoing.
	Finally, in response to the right reverend Prelate, one should not overlook the effect on a child if the so-called abuser is innocent. Let us imagine what it must be like for a child with a loving family and where nothing is wrong suddenly to find himself or herself taken out of that family unit and put into care. I cannot imagine what bewilderment there must be. How would one explain that to a child? If accusations are made and the child is taken away without proper controls being in place, that in itself could be a form of abuse. I shall end on that point, with renewed thanks to my noble friend.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I intend to focus briefly on the recent sexual abuse of children, not on things that took place a long time ago. I intend to argue that the child himself--and it is a point the noble Baroness has just made--may be gravely damaged, not only by the accusations but also by the process. It is a point that the right reverend Prelate tended to ignore.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the good record of the courts in abuse cases. That has been confirmed to me by others. I have a great respect for the courts. Sadly, the damage is caused long before the case gets to court; so, it is the process. Different local authorities work in different ways. There is no set pattern. Sometimes intrusive questioning of the child by social workers or psychiatrists is used to try to reveal supposedly hidden memories. A child's hesitant statements can be seized upon by an anxious or over zealous adult whose unshakeable conviction is of the accused's guilt. That allows premature closure of the mind to alternative explanations. Parents and other accused persons do not have any right to make representations or to be present at case conferences; I am sure that that situation ought to be remedied.
	When a decision is made it will probably take nine months before the case comes to court. Bear in mind that currently only about one-sixth of all accusations lead to a conviction.
	From my own work with the Stepney Children's Fund over 14 years I am absolutely in no doubt that sexual abuse does cause great damage to the child. That damage is mainly emotional damage and it often lasts for life. Abuse is most serious when it is perpetrated by an adult who is an authority figure in the child's life, an adult whom the child respects and trusts. Abuse is worst of all when the accusation is against "my mum" or "my dad". That sort of accusation destroys the child's whole world, destroys his security. It destroys his trust and belief in human goodness. It destroys his trust in his own self-worth. A parental haven of safety suddenly becomes a source of alarm and anxiety.
	At what stage is the damage caused? Clearly, if there is an abuse that will be the trigger. If there has been no abuse the child's world can still be torn apart. A child is damaged by a false accusation. A child is damaged when dad is led away by the police. A child is damaged when he is torn away from his family and put into a children's home for his protection. A child is damaged when he is intrusively questioned by an adult who tries to make him remember being abused, who tries to sow doubts in his mind, who tries to persuade him to testify against his father. Long before the case gets to court the damage is done. Even if the court finds the parent innocent there will always remain in the child's mind a lurking suspicion. Trust once doubted cannot be restored. The shock and sense of betrayal can and often does affect the child for life.
	I am truly sorry for those who have to make decisions in this type of case because there is no safe option. Either way it may destroy the quality of life of a child and his family if they get it wrong. A judgment has to be made at every stage and the quality of those judgments is crucial.
	What can be done to improve the chances that the right decisions will be made at each stage? A number of proposals have been made this evening. I suggest the following. All concerned must realise that there is no safe option. These decisions are so serious that they must be taken only by experienced, responsible, well trained professionals who understand the inherent problems which may arise as a result of the decision they make. If we do not have enough professionals we must buy some more. The criterion for decision, I believe, should be: is more damage likely to be caused to the child by pursuing the case or by not pursuing the case? Before deciding to pursue the case it would be logical to ensure that there is corroborative evidence, that the accuser does not have a private agenda: for example, revenge or financial gain.
	There will be a need to change government guidelines and possibly the law. It has been suggested that false accusations of sexual abuse should become a criminal offence. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has provided guidelines for practitioners questioning children. These guidelines should be strictly adhered to by all adults questioning children. The Government should ensure that all local authorities enforce this rule.
	Finally, all parents need to understand their responsibilities towards their children. It is no good punishing parents who fail to live up to a code of behaviour which has never been communicated to them. All parents should know how much damage they will cause to their child if they make a false accusation against their partner.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I want to raise the concerns of some parents of children with autism and attention deficit hyperacitivity disorder. I declare an interest. My wife and I have one daughter with autism and another with ADHD. My wife is patron of the ADHD charity, ADDIS.
	One child in every 100 in the United Kingdom is autistic. The National Autistic Society is extremely concerned about false accusations of child abuse. They are directly and personally involved with families affected by it. ADDIS is also concerned about these false accusations. Because of the unwillingness of some social workers to accept ADHD as a recognised condition they sometimes wrongly assume that the symptoms of ADHD are symptoms of abuse.
	A further complication results when parents deny this accusation and seek a medical diagnosis for the child. Social workers have been known then to use MSBP as an explanation for the parents' behaviour. In several extreme cases where families were placed in family assessment units at the request of the social services, the referring social workers have still refused to accept the diagnosis when the assessment units confirm and validate the diagnosis, even sometimes commenting on the excellent parenting skills. This places untold stress on the family, and ultimately the child's real needs are not being met.
	The effects of having an impaired and disabled child both on the family and the child are enormous. No words can do justice to the emotional pain, the sheer physical hardship and the financial drain on these families. They rightly look for assistance from the statutory authorities. But it is a sad fact that a small minority of authorities and their staff charged with providing services to disabled people and their families are turning the problem back on to the parents due to their over reliance on psychoanalytical theories. Such officials blame the parents for causing the child's problems when it is the child's problems causing the family to malfunction. This has led to parents and children with autism and ADHD being labelled wrongly as child abusers. These officials fail to understand the constant difficulties of managing the effects of a child's disruptive behaviour on a family.
	Like my noble friend Lord Howe, I admire the dedication and commitment that the vast majority of social workers bring to their difficult jobs. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that the interests of the child must be paramount; that a significant minority of children suffer quite horrific experiences and must be protected.
	However, I am concerned that a small minority of social workers are misusing their enormous powers. Families have powerful evidence of cases where child protection procedures are not being implemented in an impartial, objective and even-handed manner. The evidence to prove their innocence when charged with child abuse is not being admitted to child protection conferences. I agree with my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Lucas that the rights of parents should be strengthened in that regard.
	The NAS is particularly concerned about the draft guidance on identifying MSBP. Worryingly, all the symptoms described are also applicable to autism. But the guidance is likely actively to encourage people to focus attention on MSBP--as my noble friend Lord Howe said, a very rare condition--before discounting other possibilities such as autism.
	Can the Minister tell the House why, given the far higher prevalence of autism, it is so neglected in terms of adequate guidance? Also, does the Minister agree that autism and ADHD awareness training is needed for social workers, area child protection committees and the police?

Lord Brookman: My Lords, as the last speaker before the debate is wound up, it is my duty to be brief, if for no other reason than that I have listened intently to people who have far more experience than I in the field of false memory syndrome. Indeed, I am somewhat humbled having heard the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever.
	First, I declare an interest. Last year I succeeded Lord Wise of King's Lynn as president of the Welsh Trust for the Prevention of Abuse, whose object it is to protect children from paedophiles and the aged and mentally handicapped from sexual and physical abuse. It does good work and is supported strongly by the Churches in Wales and indeed the police.
	As noble Lords may be aware, Wales has had some of the most horrendous cases of child abuse that one could imagine. But now, probably as a result of that fact, Wales has a children's commissioner whose principal aim in exercising his functions will be to promote and safeguard the rights and welfare of children. I well recall, as will many other noble Lords, the delicate handling of the Bill through this House by my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, now Leader of the House. All that will help.
	I agree very much with the NSPCC. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who has lost faith in that organisation, I have not. I agreed with it when it recognised that false accusations can be extremely damaging to the individual and the families. But it makes the point that from its own research it is vital that children are listened to. The NSPCC goes on to say that all too often children and young people who suffer abuse have no one they can trust or turn to.
	So my point is, as is the society's, that false allegations must not leave children suffering in silence. It is still the case that most child abuse and neglect remains hidden because children find it too difficult to speak out. A report published by the NSPCC entitled Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom, showed that nine out of 10 young people--2,869 18 to 24 year-olds took part in the survey--had a loving family background. But significant minorities suffered serious abuse or neglect.
	Therefore, while fully understanding the merit in the noble Earl's eloquent raising of the issue we are debating this evening, and agreeing with views expressed that it is an extremely complex matter and that from time to time serious issues arise (as highlighted by the British False Memory Society) I take the view that nothing should in any way interfere with the support of children in what is, as I said before, a very complex area. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on raising this very difficult issue in the debate today. We heard some thoughtful and heartfelt speeches from all round the House. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, in her place today making such a good speech.
	Recognising that false allegations can be and are made and discussing how to avoid those cases is crucial. It is not an "either or" issue. I strongly support campaigns such as the NSPCC's Full Stop campaign, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, which are designed to prevent child abuse and neglect. The incidence of neglect is still unacceptably high, as a recent NSPCC survey shows.
	The law of child protection has rightly evolved over the years. The recent Victoria Climbie case however demonstrates that, despite that, horrendous abuse and the death of young defenceless children still takes place. We must therefore always be on the alert to child abuse and we should expect an interventionist approach of those responsible for child protection. We expect a great deal, rightly, of social workers in particular and heavily censure them when they fail. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham made a powerful case for ensuring that we do not weaken our commitment to the protection of children. I share that view.
	I agree that there is a paramount need to prevent child abuse and the Bryn Estyn cases which were the subject of Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report stick particularly in my mind. I understand that guilty people will often protest their innocence even after a fair trial. But we must also be on the alert for false accusations and poor process which lead to family break-up and misery.
	In that regard, I say to my noble friend Lord Carlile that we are not here talking largely about criminal cases and the result of criminal trials; we are talking about the situation beforehand, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, reminded us. That is the situation where children are put into care and put on the child protection register even before the process of going through the criminal courts.
	Many groups feel an acute sense of grievance in relation to false accusations made, many of them parents of children with ME, autism or respiratory problems that were only diagnosed after parents had been accused of abuse, notably through the diagnosis of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. As regard diagnoses of MSPB for parents of children with ME, Dr Nigel Speight, of University Hospital, North Durham, described it as a "mini epidemic". Paul Shattock of the Autism Research Unit at Sunderland University described the same trend for parents of children with autism as "horrifying". Some have likened the use of MSBP allegations to the subject matter of Arthur Miller's Crucible and alleged that this is a new Salem.
	The line of cases through Rochdale, Cleveland and the Orkneys must surely convince us all of the dangers. Use by a powerful group of individuals--paediatricians, social workers and the police--of some dubious diagnostic technique or social work theory, whether it is recovered memory, belief in satanic ritual abuse or anal dilatation, can lead to massive injustice and family break-up without any objective justification at all.
	I confess that I am disquieted about the use of the diagnosis of MSBP, the way in which allegations of abuse are made and the draconian way in which they are sometimes acted upon. I am doubtful about the level of understanding by doctors and social workers of the condition. Indeed, I am doubtful as to whether it really is a scientifically or medically established condition. I share that view with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Where is the scientific scrutiny of the condition?
	I am doubtful too about what the diagnosis consists of and who should make it. After all, what are the clear and unambiguous symptoms? Is it for a paediatrician to make or a psychiatrist? How qualified are paediatricians to make what often appears to be not a physical diagnosis about a child but a psychiatric diagnosis about a parent? I am doubtful about whether the paediatricians involved have become too hooked on the diagnosis and have, in many cases, acted as judge and jury. The discoverer of the condition, Professor Roy Meadow, admitted that,
	"there is a real danger of the term being overused".
	As a result, I doubt whether child protection agencies have in all cases established whether a child has a real disorder before making an MSBP diagnosis. Above all, I am worried that MSBP by its very nature can be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Attention-seeking behaviour confirms the diagnosis; so does denial. Much can be made to fit into an MSBP profile. As a result, parents can, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, find themselves in the classic catch-22 situation.
	I therefore welcome the fact that, following the North Staffordshire inquiry, a new draft guidance has been produced by the Department of Health on induced or fabricated illness. However, I am disappointed that the review of MSBP as a condition, due from the Royal College of Paediatricians, has not yet emerged. The question is whether the guidance will perform the dual task of protecting children and preventing injustice and false allegations. However, we surely should not finalise the guidance until the college's review is available.
	It must be made clear by the guidance that, where no criminal offence is alleged, a parent would have an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence put forward at case conferences. There must be a proper opportunity for parents to participate in the discussion. Equally importantly, the child in question, if of sufficient age, must have his or her views heard and considered. There should be a right to independent advocacy. I am disappointed that the only body that I believe had a role in that respect was disbanded as a result of lack of government funding.
	As many noble Lords have said, there must be proper training in investigative techniques for social workers, general practitioners, hospital staff and others involved in case conferences. As was made clear by the Butler-Sloss Report on the Cleveland case, it is important that social workers should not act solely on the basis of medical diagnoses. A full investigation and social assessment should be carried out. If covert surveillance techniques are to be used, strict safeguards must be put in place. As the draft guidance indicates, the minimum requirement is that they should be used only by the police. I believe also that they should be used only where evidence of abuse cannot be obtained by other means. On the basis of those tests, the guidance needs considerable amendment; and in that respect, I share the doubt expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
	With regard to the practice of trawling by the police, I differ somewhat from my noble friend Lord Carlile. Even among those who are not concerned about the specific issues of false allegations that I have mentioned today, there is considerable concern about the way in which, in certain cases, the police have fished for complaints, especially where there is evidence that complainants have been encouraged by the prospect of compensation to come forward. That amounts to starting with a suspect and then trying to find a crime--the opposite of the usual police practice--which can create considerable injustice, especially when the events in question happened 15 to 20 years ago.
	What assurance can the Minister give about those police practices and about a tightening of investigative procedures in such cases? What guidelines apply, and who ensures that they are followed? What training do the police receive to enable them to investigate those cases? This is not an academic issue; it is highly topical. A massive investigation is currently taking place in Merseyside--Operation Care--with some 547 suspects and 106 establishments under investigation. However, we should not demonise paediatricians or social workers, nor should we persecute patients. Professionals have a very difficult line to tread. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that training and resourcing for our child protection services is absolutely crucial.
	In a recent BMJ article, Dr Richard Wilson, a leading consultant paediatrician, said:
	"Munchausen's by proxy has had an honourable life and valuable effects beyond its own confines".
	I am not so sure. Having participated in this debate, I am keener to ensure that some of the family tragedies about which we have heard today will never happen again.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, under our rules, I have only 18 minutes left to respond to what has been a very wide-ranging debate. I echo the sentiment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that it has been a very balanced and objective debate.
	We owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I can tell him that neither I nor the Government underestimate the impact of false accusations of child abuse on individuals, parents and the children concerned. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, that has to be balanced against our fundamental duty, both as a responsible Government and as responsible individuals, to safeguard vulnerable children from abuse and neglect.
	As my noble friend Lord Brookman said, child abuse is a very real problem for many children in this country today. The latest research, in 1993, by the Home Office shows that at that time over 100,000 adults in the UK had convictions for sex offences against children. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham referred to the scale and depth of the abuse and of the damage that can be done to many young people in our society.
	We recall the recent dreadful cases of Victoria Climbie and Lauren Wright. Surely, they provide a chilling warning of what can happen when child protection concerns are not picked up or acted upon. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, pointed out, when vital information is not shared between the relevant agencies with child protection responsibilities, or when there is an enormous variation in the performance of those authorities, tragedies can occur. Because of those failures, the Government have taken a series of measures to improve the performance of local authorities. I hope that I shall yet have time to deal with those.
	However, in rightfully criticising poor performance, we must not overlook the tremendous work undertaken by many social workers and others directly involved in protecting children. We cannot ignore the difficult job that they do daily, nor the scale of the decisions that they are required to make. My noble friend Lord Warner placed this country's overall performance on child protection in a proper international context. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said that social workers are damned if they do and damned if they do not. I have some sympathy with that view. It reflects the very difficult balance that they have to maintain at all times.
	I listened with great interest to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor. I shall be happy to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, the specific issue of autism, which he has again raised in your Lordships' House. I am sure that all parents would be concerned if children were being taken away from their families on the basis of false accusations, founded on misguided and scientifically unproved theories.
	I turn to the issue of false memory or recovered memory, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the importance for patients and their families of a full, unbiased, accurate assessment in all cases in which abuse may feature or is alleged. I am well aware of the risks that therapists may unwittingly, or wittingly, lead their patients to the wrong conclusion or fail to establish the full facts. That is a grave allegation. However, it is also important that in this debate about false memory we should not obstruct an objective consideration of all relevant issues.
	I certainly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that issues concerning psychotherapists and their professional regulation cannot be ignored. The noble Earl will know that we have started an open-ended consultation with stakeholders, including independent psychotherapy and counselling practitioners. If the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, were here today, I have no doubt that he would be able to speak about the discussions he has had with the many schools of psychotherapy in this country with a view to trying to introduce some form of regulation of them. The Government strongly support the work being done by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in that area.
	With regard to Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, I understand that it was first described by Professor Roy Meadow in 1977. I also understand that there is a widespread dispute about whether the syndrome exists. I know that cases have been identified involving suffocation, poisoning, often with prescribed drugs, active interference with medical treatment, fabrication of illness, and active withholding of food. It is very difficult for us to enter into the whys and wherefores of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. It has been a long-running and at times very technical debate.
	We are concerned to protect children from harm. That is why we have issued for consultation guidance on children in whom illness is induced or fabricated by carers with parenting responsibilities. I listened with great interest to the comments made about that consultation and I can assure noble Lords that they will be fed into the consultation process.
	The noble Countess, Lady Mar, again raised her concerns about CFS/ME. She will know that the Chief Medical Officer has put together a group which is examining the whole issue of CFS/ME and there is a sub-group examining particular issues in relation to children. The group has been aware of some of the issues surrounding child protection and it is hoped that when the whole group comes to a conclusion the guidance which will then be issued will include that in relation to clinical management. That will be most helpful to social workers in their understanding of some of the issues involved.
	The noble Countess raised with me a number of specific cases. My honourable friend Ms Jacqui Smith has invited the noble Countess to provide more details and has assured her that we will examine those cases within the limit of the terms of the Children Act 1989.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised police trawling methods. The police have a duty thoroughly to investigate all allegations of child abuse and to undertake a complete investigation. The aim is to obtain evidence either to support or to disprove the original allegation and not to produce fresh evidence. I can assure the House that the police are aware of the need to ensure that their investigation procedures in these cases incorporate the necessary safeguard against false allegations while fulfilling their duty to ensure that those who have committed serious crimes against young people in care do not escape justice.
	Surely the problem is that sex offenders generally do not commit their offences in public view and therefore there are usually no known witnesses to the allegations. It is here that the police must try to track down any witnesses. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that that responsibility must be exercised with care. In relation to guidance, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Association of Chief Police Offices is currently drawing up a manual for senior investigation officers working in child abuse cases which will include a section on good practice in tracing potential witnesses and in obtaining corroborative evidence. I hope that that will provide the detailed operational guidance which is necessary and will also lead to greater consistency throughout police forces, but I will pass on to ACPO the comments made in tonight's debate in order to ensure that it is able to take account of them.
	My noble friend Lord Mitchell would not expect me to comment on the specific case he raised and indeed I cannot do so. However, as regards sudden infant death syndrome, in recent years there has been a considerable reduction in the number of cot deaths. It is believed that that is due to a change in parental behaviour, particularly in relation to the sleeping position of babies and since the Back to Sleep campaign began there has been a 70 per cent reduction in sudden unexpected infant deaths. However, we must be alert to the fact that infanticide occurs and that death by homicide is commonest in the first year of life.
	As regards the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, the theory of toxic gas in babies' mattresses has been considered by an independent expert group and its report was published in May 1998. That was a thorough investigation but it concluded that the hypothesis was unsubstantiated and that there was no evidence to suggest that the compounds used as fire retardant in PVC or other cot mattress materials were a cause of sudden death syndrome.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I understand the pain of families falsely accused of child abuse; the parents and the children concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, rightly reminded us of that. It is the aim of social service authorities to enable families to stay together wherever possible. Many inquiries following referrals to social services result in families being classified as those whose children are in need of support and who need assistance to promote the well-being of the child and to aid families to cope. I suggest that that is the reason for the gap between the number of children referred and the number of children taken into care at the end of the process. In a sense, that is the preventive part of the work of social workers. My noble friend Lord Warner provided some reassurance in that area.
	As regards child protection conferences, parents should normally be invited to attend and helped to participate fully. If the parents are excluded, or are unable or unwilling to attend a child protection conference, they should be enabled to communicate their views to the conference by another means. The focus of the conferences is on the welfare of the child and it is not an adversarial process. I repeat that in working together we say that parents should normally be invited to attend the conference; they should be helped fully to participate; and social services should give parents information about local advice and advocacy agencies and explain that they may bring an advocate friend or supporter to the case conference. Parents have a right to be heard.
	In relation specifically to the medical issues raised tonight, where parents disagree with a medical diagnosis made in their child's case, they have the right to seek a second opinion. If that opinion is given, they have the right for it to be taken into account by statutory agencies when assessing their child's case. In addition, proper complaints procedures are an essential safeguard for people receiving social service services. We require local authorities to publicise their social service complaint procedures to ensure that service users, carers and their representatives are properly informed about them and how to use them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, suggested that sometimes social workers jump in too quickly. My belief is that social services do not instigate child protection inquiries lightly or on a whim, but under the Children Act 1989 they have a statutory duty to make inquiries where they have reasonable cause to believe that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. But I also say to the noble Lord that no one can be complacent about how those child protection procedures are operated in practice--certainly not me--and I have taken careful note of the concerns that have been raised. I also noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the appropriateness of the use of the criminal justice system.
	There is no doubt that we need to do more work to drive up standards in the area of child protection. First, we have established an inter-agency working group which is reviewing procedures for investigating the abuse of children in care or looked-after children in the context of taking forward the Government's response to the Waterhouse report, Lost in Care. That review will lead to the development of practical procedural guidance to the police and social services on the handling of complex abuse investigations.
	I also accept the point, as have many noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, that if we are to ensure that we have the highest quality service in child protection, we clearly have to do much to raise the morale, professionalism and training of our social workers. I believe that the General Social Care Council will have a profound impact in doing so and I am delighted my noble friend is continuing as its acting chair. The National Care Standards Commission will be responsible for ensuring consistency in the quality of service provided, particularly in relation to children's homes, foster care and childcare, alongside the introduction of the Social Care Institute for Excellence.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, challenged the Government to take an evidence-based approach in social services and child protection procedures as it has done in the NHS. We shall very shortly establish the Social Care Institute for Excellence which will have the very purpose of publishing robust evidence in relation to the performance of social care provision. I am sure that that will prove extremely helpful.
	I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that we need to build up the professionalism and confidence of social workers and do much more in the area of recruitment and retention. This week a recruitment and retention campaign will be launched at the social services conference. It is clear to me that in the past workforce planning and strategic decisions and policies about the social service workforce have been considerably lacking. We must put it right. We must attract more high quality people to the profession and do everything we can to ensure that those who work in it receive the support they require. As my noble friend Lord Warner suggested, I am sure that the extension of the current social work qualification from September 2003 from a two-year certificate to a three-year degree level course will be enormously helpful.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham raised the question of funding, which is very important. This year and next social service departments should receive a 3.5 per cent growth in funding, and clearly we need to build upon it. As to the performance of social service authorities overall, I agree with my noble friend Lord Warner that we are not talking simply about the individual performance of social workers but the role of managers and counsellors. I believe that the new approach of the social service inspectorate, our intervention powers, best value and the ability of councils to take special measures are a symbol of our efforts to improve overall performance.
	In conclusion, it is not easy to inquire into allegations of abuse, some of which inevitably will be mistaken, misplaced or even false, but we must never encourage a culture of non-interference, turning a blind eye or passing on the other side. Our effort must be to obtain a child protection service where the procedures are operated with fairness, rigour and, above all, the interests of children at heart. I have no doubt that our determination to do that will be informed by the debate tonight.

Earl Howe: My Lords, in thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I now beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gulf War Veterans

Lord Morris of Manchester: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what new consideration they are giving to the problems and needs of Gulf War veterans with still undiagnosed illnesses and the dependants of those who have died.
	My Lords, speaking as a veteran of parliamentary debates on Gulf War illnesses over many years--indeed almost for a decade now--both here and in another place, I welcome my noble friend Lord Bach to this evening's debate and look forward to his, as it were, "maiden" speech on what I know he appreciates is a subject of high importance to the ex-service community. At the same time I record my appreciation to his ministerial predecessors, my noble friends Lord Gilbert and Lady Symons, for their unfailing courtesy in replying for the Government to the four previous debates I have opened on the problems and needs of Gulf veterans.
	None of us here, least of all my noble friend, wants to see the afflicted and bereaved of the Gulf conflict made to suffer the added strain and hurtful and demeaning indignities that preventable delay in dealing with their concerns can impose. There was no delay in their response to the call of duty. Nor should there have been any delay in discharging our debt of honour to act justly to them. That was, and is now, much the best way--better by far than words of praise--of showing our regard and admiration for those who served this country with such gallantry in the Gulf War 10 years ago.
	Yet sadly, as I found when spending an evening with many of them recently after performing the opening ceremony of the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association's new premises in Kingston-upon-Hull, there is widespread feeling among veterans and bereaved families alike that they are not being justly treated. Indeed, some talk of being,
	"discarded now by officialdom as 'yesterday's people'".
	It was through my right honourable friend John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister and Member of Parliament for Kingston-upon-Hull East, that the association invited me to perform the opening ceremony. He is highly regarded by them, and I take this opportunity warmly to thank him, on their behalf, for his abiding readiness to listen and practical concern to help when and where he can.
	The association's officers and members recalled during my evening with them two veterans, both now deceased, whose cases I referred to in opening the debate on Gulf War illnesses on 15th January 2001. I had raised first the case of Major Ian Hill whom I had known for many years. He was in touch with me shortly before the debate to say that his health had again deteriorated and that his medical condition was now described by his doctor as one of "total burnout". His wife Carol, on whose devoted care he relied crucially both day and night, was also severely disabled with a "crumbling spine". In the final weeks of Ian's life they were left trying to cope in inappropriate housing, and my last news of him before his death was that he had then become registered blind.
	The other case I raised in my speech on 15th January was that of Hilary Jones, ex-Queen Alexandra Royal Army Nursing Corps. I described hers as distressing as any case of which I was aware. Terminally ill and living alone, she was deeply hurt by delays in dealing with her war pension appeal; and as in Ian Hill's case, her entitlement to a 100 per cent war pension was accepted only after she had died. Both Hilary and Ian went to their graves with a deep sense of injustice having succumbed to illnesses which were never fully diagnosed. They are widely mourned among Gulf veterans.
	It was cases like these which led The Royal British Legion to describe its own experience of dealing with Gulf War pension appeals as "nothing short of shocking". Anyone contesting that assessment should read a ministerial reply of 22nd September to representations that I had made for Shaun Rusling of the Gulf Veterans and Families Association. The reply states that the MoD's Gulf War database,
	". . . confirms that at the end of July 2001, 253 appeals made by veterans had been heard by the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal. Of these, 125 were successful".
	Therefore, almost 50 per cent of appellants were found, by independent assessors, to have been receiving less than their war pension entitlement. And in further endorsement of The Royal British Legion's description of the treatment of appellants as "nothing short of shocking" I repeat that, in the cases of Ian Hill and Hilary Jones, notwithstanding their terminal illnesses, full war pension entitlement was denied until after they had died.
	No one underestimates the scale of the hideous inhumanity of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September; and the Prime Minister was eminently right, in his Statement in another place on 14th September, in seeking to put them into perspective. But many Gulf veterans were disturbed by the impression they felt could have been given that the conflict in which they were involved was of scant significance. First, they quote in particular the comment that,
	"In the Falklands War, 255 British servicemen perished, and during the Gulf War we lost 47".
	Reacting to this, Gulf veterans say that it was over 10 years out of date. They point out that the cost in British lives was very much higher than 47 and that it is still increasing month by month. Since the conflict, says the MoD, 496 more of our troops have died, of whom 88 took their own lives. Thousands more, all of them A1 when hostilities began in 1991, are in broken health and--again recalling the cases of Ian Hill and Hilary Jones--many of them are terminally ill. Gulf veterans also state that deaths among innocent civilians in Kuwait caused by the conflict were high and continue to rise.
	And the second extract that veterans quote from the Statement on 14th September is the comment that:
	"The limits on the numbers that they [terrorist groups] kill . . . are only practical and technical. We know that they would, if they could, go further and use chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction".--[Official Report, Commons, 14/9/01; col. 606.]
	The reaction of veterans to this is to say that any understanding of the significance of the Gulf conflict has to start from the fact that it was on a scale bigger than any that British troops had been involved in since the Korean War. It was also the first in which chemical or biological weapons were deployed against our troops since 1918. Moreover the MoD and the Pentagon were convinced they would be used. So too were our troops deployed to the Gulf. They like millions more across the world had seen in TV reporting, only months before the conflict began, the stark effects of Saddam Hussein's use of these weapons against tens of thousands of Iranian civilians. And US and British commanders not only expected their use in the Gulf War, but calculated the likely death toll. Thus the Pentagon sent 150,000 body bags to the Gulf.
	So when the conflict started our troops were not acting on the assumption that their adversaries "would, if they could" use such means of mass destruction as biological and chemical weapons. They knew these weapons were already deployed against them by a fanatical enemy who had only recently used them utterly without scruple or mercy in attacks on the civilian population of a neighbouring Muslim country. And Gulf veterans, now in broken health, many with severely debilitating but still undiagnosed illnesses, trace some of the worst of their problems to the MoD's preparations for their role in facing the reality of living within range of Iraqi weapons known to be carrying chemical, biological and nuclear warheads.
	The MoD correctly assessed the threat but not all the health risks of its measures. Of the 17.3 per cent of veterans Professor Simon Wessely's report in the January/February edition of the BMJ described as believing they are suffering from "Gulf War Syndrome", more and more attribute their illnesses to the protective measures taken to counter anticipated health risks. The measures taken comprised a multiple immunisation programme of unprecedented range and intensity--a veritable blitzkrieg on the immune system--that included protection against anthrax, then known to be stockpiled in Iraq; the first-ever issue of pyridostigmine bromide (NAPS) tablets as an antidote to biological agents; and the deployment of toxic sensors and pesticides, including organophosphates, to prevent fly-borne diseases.
	Now that British forces face another enemy with and prepared to use chemical and biological weapons, I invite my noble friend to detail the action so far taken to rectify shortcomings in the measures taken to protect our troops in the Gulf. I invite my noble friend also to comment on the anguish and at times anger felt by the afflicted and bereaved that the public inquiry, for which The Royal British Legion has been pressing the Prime Minister for over two years now, has still to be agreed. The failure to institute an inquiry is deeply unfortunate. For ultimately there will have to be one, not only in fairness to Gulf veterans with undiagnosed illnesses but to avoid repetition of the mistakes made in preparing for that conflict in future deployments.
	Meanwhile, I have been asked to establish this evening the total legal costs so far incurred by the MoD in responding to compensation cases raised by Gulf veterans; and also whether, and at what cost to them, veterans bringing such cases have been or will be asked to contribute to costs.
	My noble friend will be aware of the certainty with which veterans with undiagnosed illnesses say that their suffering was caused by measures taken to protect them. They know they were taken with the best of intentions; but that does not lessen their suffering from problems still to be fully addressed. Nor are they concerned only about their own plight. Their backing for an urgent and wide-ranging public inquiry was founded also on a desire to ensure that our Armed Forces would be thoroughly prepared and better protected in future deployments.
	Sadly, one shortcoming that could now be repeated is the failure to safeguard our troops from the ill effects of a multiple immunisation programme. In fact we were told by the then Minister, in the debate on 15th January, that the final results of work on "possible adverse health effects" of the inoculations given in the Gulf conflict were not available. Speaking earlier in that debate, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that,
	"one glaring question stands out above all others. Was the cocktail of inoculations . . . liable to cause, in some individuals, a harmful chemical or physiological reaction that would lead to loss of future immunity?".--[Official Report, 15/1/2001; col. 1014.]
	He went on to say that he was "staggered" to have been told some months earlier, by the then Minister, that a planned medical study of the effects of dispensing all the inoculations at the same time--"including the medical histories of those who had subsequently so tragically suffered"--had not yet been undertaken.
	The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, strongly insisted that this should have been done at the outset because it was by far the most likely common factor in causing subsequent indisposition or worse; and on 15th January he asked the then Minister for the results of the study. He said:
	"It must by now have been carried out--if it has not been, that can only mean that the Ministry of Defence is not serious enough about getting at the truth".--[Official Report, 15/1/01; col. 1014.]
	To which the Minister replied:
	"He will be disappointed when I tell him that the final results are not expected until 2003".--[Official Report, 15/1/01; col. 1021.]
	So the only honest answer to anyone who in 1990--about to be given 14 inoculations within a fortnight--had asked about their likely health effects would have been:
	"We will not be able to tell you for another 13 years".
	The Minister was, of course, correct in saying her reply would disappoint the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. It visibly did so: for to him, as he had already told the House, it meant that,
	"the MoD is not serious enough about getting at the truth".
	I know that my noble friend will want to respond to the justified concern here and in another place about the worrying implications of this for our troops now deploying. Perhaps my noble friend would comment also on what further help is being considered for those who, in the words of his predecessor to the noble Lord, Lord Bramall, "so tragically suffered" after multiple immunisation in the Gulf conflict. In particular, my noble friend might reflect on the possible relevance of the vaccine damage payments legislation in compensating them.
	Another question raised with me is whether it is intended again to issue NAPS tablets as an antidote to biological weapons; and, if so, what instructions are now being issued on their use? And can my noble friend confirm that there are sufficient stocks of pesticides, other than organophosphates, available to protect troops deployed to arid desert regions in what could be a protracted conflict?
	A further question of concern to veterans is what action has been taken to improve medical record-keeping? Records were often incomplete after the Gulf conflict, making it difficult to confirm the nature of treatment given and to diagnose veterans' medical problems. Other concerns are: first, whether, if reservists are now to be called upon, the same benefits as for regulars will be payable in the case of injury or death; secondly, with the closure of all military hospitals except Haslar, whether enough beds and medical specialists will be available to treat the number of casualties we could be confronted with; and, thirdly, since current hostilities are likely to prove traumatic for the troops most involved, what arrangements have been made for aftercare and counselling for those who deploy and for families left behind.
	All of us know that Gulf War illnesses are rarely discussed now without mention of the very heavy use of depleted uranium (DU) during the conflict; and many noble Lords will be aware of Granada TV's recently networked film "Back to the Front" which included extracts from a US Army training video made before the Gulf War by Dr Douglas Rokke, a highly regarded expert on the health effects of exposure to DU.
	Dr Rokke was later sent to the Gulf to investigate contamination there from the use of DU and to "devise a way of cleaning it up". He is seen in the film saying:
	"We found that nobody there knew what was contaminated, how to manage contamination or how to provide medical care to casualties. It was a mess".
	He went on:
	"The British Government knew because they approved the video and training materials developed. I had a British officer assigned to work with me".
	It will be helpful now to have my noble friend's response to these disclosures and, more particularly, to the contrast between Dr Rokke's comments and ministerial assurances here and in another place that there was and is no danger in the use of DU. I invite him also to respond to the valuable recent report from the British Geological Survey (BGS).
	That report, like Dr Rokke in his training video, looks beyond heavy metal poisoning in stating that:
	"Unlike materials such as cadmium, exposure to uranium may also result in health effects due to the presence of its inherent radioactivity".
	In discussing DU used in military conflicts, the report goes on to say that those likely to be exposed include rescue workers and field staff associated with the clean-up and decommissioning of vehicles and sites attacked by DU weapons. The BGS report, no less than Dr Rokke's video and subsequent comments, calls seriously into question what Gulf veterans have been told. I know my noble friend will want to respond to me about this as fully as he can when he speaks.
	I ask him also now to explain why the MoD's own report on the use of DU made no attempt to estimate the interactive effects of combining exposure to DU with multiple immunisation. He will know that this question, posed by doctors of high distinction and raised in the House soon after the MoD's report was published, is now of urgently renewed importance. Yet it has still not been answered.
	Gulf veterans with still undiagnosed illnesses and bereaved families strongly resent being told to accept that mistakes made were not deliberate. They know as well as anyone in Whitehall that decisions about protective measures often have to be made on a "needs must" basis; but they will never accept that the victims of mistaken decisions alone should be left to cope with their consequences. They rightly insist that the nation, not the individual, should meet the cost of such decisions. That quintessentially is the case for a most urgent review of the MoD's current stance on further help for those who, and I quote the words again,
	"so tragically suffered from mistaken decisions".
	The way a nation treats those who are prepared to lay down their lives in its service, and the dependants of those who do so, is ultimately more revealing of its moral worth than all the oratory of its leaders. By that defining test, the men and women that this debate is about deserve well of this House.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has a long-standing and well deserved reputation for his concern for all those who suffer or have disabilities of any kind. He has been a prominent and very hard-working member of The Royal British Legion's committee set up to study the effects of illness arising out of service in the Gulf during Operation Granby. This is now a problem which has been of great concern for more than 10 years and it is appropriate that your Lordships should again have the opportunity to debate the matter. The noble Lord is much to be congratulated on raising it. His closing words sum up the difficulties that we are facing. At the same time, I should like to pay tribute to Colonel Terry English of The Royal British Legion for his work for Gulf veterans.
	The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has not left undone those things which he ought to have done, but the current scare word is "anthrax". It would seem that the realities of the problem are far exceeded by the media coverage that it is receiving, but anthrax has been a matter which has concerned the Ministry of Defence for some time. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring the House up to date.
	In November 1998 the anthrax immunisation programme of voluntary immunisation for service personnel and MoD civilians was suspended when the licence for the current stocks of vaccine ran out. It seems that the sole supplier, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, suffered production problems, but did not inform the Ministry of Defence until October, a month after full delivery should have been completed.
	The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, assured those concerned with defence matters in both Houses that there was no long-term problem. However, the first new supplies of anthrax vaccine were not received until January of this year, 27 months after the problem was first discovered. But supplies are now available and all members of the UK Armed Forces will have access to the highest level of protection possible against this potential biological warfare agent.
	So far, so good. Members of the Armed Forces will be able to get protection if they so wish. It is likely that the dangers of anthrax infection, in spite of what we have seen in the evening papers today, have been wildly overstated. But perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask the Minister what is the current situation regarding major supplies of anti-anthrax vaccine appropriate for large numbers of the population, should it be so needed.
	When The Royal British Legion delegation visited the United States a year ago, it received a statement from Congressman Metcalf on squalene in anthrax vaccine. I say this not for the first time: I do not know what I am talking about--perhaps the Minister can discover for me in due course--but it is suggested that this may be sufficient to call for an end to the anthrax vaccination programme. Is there any justification for the concern about squalene and does it indicate the possible need for a change in policy?
	This is merely one aspect of the problems arising from the exposure of members of the Armed Forces to various illness inducing agents. Both in this country and in the United States, great efforts have been made to establish whether a common agent has caused these problems or indeed whether those who have suffered do so because of their service in the Gulf or exposure to anti measures which have gone wrong. Rightly, tests have been made on peer bodies or control groups of those who did not serve in the Gulf to find out what is their incidence of disease or premature death.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, in both countries record keeping and retrieval have been less than satisfactory. But that is past and gone and those who are working on the problem today have to do their best with what they have. During Operation Granby there was no evidence of any chemical alarms, all of which are regarded as having been false. For instance, both in the United States and over here, the Sabbahiyah Girls' School incident is regarded as being due to nitric acid and not a mustard gas agent. To this day it is being denied, as the noble Lord suggests, that chemical or biological weapons were employed anywhere in the Gulf. Therefore without doubt we have a problem in that some other explanation of the illnesses is required. I am not certain that we have one.
	In the United States, the problem is being taken most seriously. Last year The Royal British Legion again visited America and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, accompanied the party. The Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the American Legion and the Walter Reed Hospital have all clearly worked hard to establish the causes of the problem or problems, and what can be done to alleviate them. Much water has passed under the bridge and it is time that we received from the Government a further interim report.
	Throughout work on Gulf problems runs the strain of depleted uranium, as the noble Lord has said. It is a matter which is not restricted to the Gulf, but certainly obtained in Bosnia as well. Rather like anthrax, the scare seems to have been exaggerated. There is little doubt that depleted uranium in itself is neither toxic nor dangerous. However, there may well be danger when the depleted uranium takes the form of a metallic dust following an explosion. I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to bring the House up to date on current thinking.
	It is very good news that in this country we now have a sub-department of the Ministry of Defence, under Dr Moonie, which concentrates on veterans' affairs. That will enable all the bodies working on the problems--it has to be said that they have not always been in unison--to have one department to which they can address their concerns.
	Having established the sub-department, it will be easier and more convenient to establish a veterans' register. I hope that this is being done, or has been done. The lack of documentation on Gulf problems arises at least in part from the lack of such a register, although of course that is only a small part of the difficulties regarding the documentation of Gulf problems. With the possibility of operations in an ecologically dangerous area in the near future, it is to be hoped that the Ministry of Defence has learnt the lessons of the Gulf War and will get it right next time. I hope that there will not be a next time, but I fear that there may be.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I speak in the gap because I was afraid that I would not be able to get here in time for the debate. I apologise to the House.
	At a time when we are once more preparing to send our troops into battle, it seems intolerable that we have still done nothing for this small group of people who came back sick from the Gulf 10 years ago. The War Pensions Agency acknowledged in 1998 that illness occurred in relation to Gulf service, which is a fairly plain statement.
	The damage to these lives has arisen not from enemy action but because of our long drawn out refusal to recognise that the men whom we cheerfully dispatched hale and hearty to war returned sick men. We are still ignoring both the American findings and the 1997 medical report of the MoD itself.
	I am very glad that there is a Veterans Affairs Office, but it has been in position for some time now and I should like to know what it is doing about pensions. It would be difficult to think of a more striking example of perverse behaviour in the way of morale raising than what is going on still for these veterans.
	At long last we have provided some justice for the prisoners of the Japanese. We are looking at a very small group, but what the Government do or do not do for them sends a most significant message to soldiers about to go into battle. They should be able to count on just and equitable treatment--and treatment early rather than late--and not the prospect of being fobbed off once they have served their term. That is what it feels like to them.
	What guarantee is there that we are better prepared this time for the troops to encounter a chemical threat? What lessons have the Government learnt? I hope they have learnt some, because it seems to me that a small group of people have suffered unduly and are still suffering.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we last debated this subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, in January of this year on the 10th anniversary of the Gulf War. I believe that this is my fourth debate on the subject in the past few years. Despite the temptation, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I shall not repeat what I said on those occasions, but I hope that the Government will take it as read that we on these Benches very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in his long campaign for justice for Gulf veterans.
	In our previous debate we talked at length about the issue of depleted uranium and whether the MoD was being wholly frank about depleted uranium and its effects. In that context, I was quite surprised, to put it mildly, to see correspondence in May this year from Dr Moonie to Llew Smith, MP, which appeared to constitute a reply to a question which Mr Smith had asked all of 18 months earlier on the subject of testing veterans for depleted uranium. Although the information contained in the answer on retrospective exposure assessment was helpful, it does show just how slow progress can be on the issue of compensation and justice for Gulf veterans.
	In the 10 months since the previous debate a series of papers have been published and there have been a number of other developments. Even so, the Government have essentially not changed their line on compensation for Gulf War veterans or taken to mediation the claims of those taking legal redress.
	There are some 1,866 legal claims from Gulf veterans currently in the pipeline. In May, in a Written Question, I asked whether the MoD had plans to follow the Lord Chancellor's guidance on mediation published on 23rd March. In announcing the new initiative by the Government--and I believe that the Minister was then with the Lord Chancellor's Department and he may recollect what he said at the time--the Lord Chancellor said:
	"This Government want to lead the way in demonstrating that legal disputes do not have to end up in court. Very often there will be alternative ways of settling the issues at stake which are simpler, cheaper, quicker and less stressful to all concerned".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who at that time was the Minister responsible in the House of Lords, replied by letter. She said, fairly bluntly, that,
	"The Ministry of Defence does not consider mediation on compensation for Gulf Veterans an appropriate way forward at the present time".
	She went on to say, however, that the Government would be,
	"tireless in its efforts to understand the reasons why some Gulf veterans are now ill".
	I wonder whether the Minister, having now served in both the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Ministry of Defence, has any different reply on that subject.
	To many of us, the strategy of the Ministry of Defence is to play for time. The essence seems to be to commission endless research papers while having no intention of actually compensating the veterans. Some of the research carried out has, of course, been valuable, particularly that of Professor Nicola Cherry of Manchester University, and I should like to look at this more closely presently.
	I am, however, rather baffled why we needed to have the latest piece of research from the Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme, which published a paper in the BMJ this September. This concluded that,
	"substantial numbers--17.3%--of British Gulf War Veterans believe they have Gulf War Syndrome which is associated with psychological distress, a high number of symptoms, and some reduction in activity levels".
	I am not quite sure why we have had to wait 10 years for that astounding conclusion. Equally bizarre is the research from Professor Lee and others published in the Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps in June this year which concluded that 80 per cent of the second cohort of 1,000 veterans were "well".
	Of greater value have been the conclusions of Professor Cherry's studies published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine in May. These are: that while not accepting that there is such a condition as Gulf War syndrome, nevertheless Gulf veterans report more illness than non-Gulf veterans; that the severity of the symptoms is greater in Gulf than in non-Gulf veterans; and that three factors are consistently related to severity--the number of inoculations, days spent handling pesticides and days exposed to smoke from oil fires--and that the former two warranted further investigation.
	Following publication of this research, in answer to another Written Question the noble Baroness informed me that a team--I assume this is concerned with the Gulf Veterans Assessment Programme--has completed work on blood samples taken from Gulf veterans to test the hypothesis that multiple vaccinations may have triggered physiological changes. It seems incredible that we still do not have this data after 10 years. Can the Minister say when publication of these findings is expected?
	When will the MAFF research into the effects of exposure to OP pesticides be completed? Likewise, the Porton Down research into the adverse effects of the combination of vaccines and NAPS tablets given to the troops in the Gulf, both of which were mentioned by the noble Baroness in her reply to me? What other research to test the link between these two exposures and Gulf illness is being carried out?
	While the research has been carried out the MoD has been stalling on compensation for Gulf veterans. However, it has emerged in the meantime that it has been paying out record sums--some £100 million--to a variety of deserving and not so deserving individuals: £387,000 for negligent treatment of warts; £541,000 for injury from slipping on oil; £377,000 for failure to prevent frostbite. If these claims can be satisfied, why not those of the Gulf veterans?
	There are two further important issues; first, squalene. I have seen the letter of reassurance from the Minister, Dr Moonie, in the press, categorically denying that this was added to vaccines administered to Gulf veterans. Can the Minister repeat this assurance? If he can, what investigations were made to allow him to do so? How can the Ministry explain the positive tests for squalene carried out by the Tulane Medical School in Louisiana?
	The second issue is abnormalities which may be experienced by veterans' children. Evidence from the States, in a major study of 30,000 parents, seems to be suggesting that both male and female veterans conceive children with birth defects at a much higher rate than normal. Are the Government monitoring this? Are they carrying out their own research?
	It is hardly surprising that both among Gulf veterans and supporters there is a large degree of impatience. The wheels of the MoD have ground exceeding slow. In correspondence it says that it is willing to engage in dialogue where there is no discussion of liability, but that is central to the veterans' case. It is almost as if the MoD is insisting that there must be a single "syndrome" before liability can be accepted. If that is the case, then the Minister should make it clear.
	The only conclusion I can draw is that the Government's piecemeal approach to this whole subject is quite unacceptable. Should not there now be a full public inquiry as we had into BSE and CJD, for which the Royal British Legion has been pressing? I hope that the Minister can bring a fresh government response tonight. We badly need to draw a line under the whole episode, all the more so in view of the new involvement in prospect for our troops. What kind of precedent can the way that our Gulf War veterans are treated be for the health of our current troops? I hope that we can give our current troops every confidence that they will be dealt with properly in future, and that means treating our Gulf veterans in a proper fashion.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for introducing a debate on this subject. Perhaps I may say from the outset that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the British servicemen who fought in the Gulf in Operation Granby.
	Almost 3,000 members of the 53,462 forces of the United Kingdom who served in the Gulf conflict have been seen by doctors looking into Gulf war syndrome. No cause for the wide range of symptoms has ever been found, but in the past illnesses have been blamed on biological weapons, smoke from burning oil wells, exposure to depleted uranium or vaccinations. There is no doubt that many hundreds of them have contracted illnesses since then. The Conservative government put in place a series of scientific inquiries into the causes of the illnesses, and the present Government have added more. Those scientific studies must run their course before we can be in a position to make conclusive judgments. But no stone should be left unturned in the search for the truth about Gulf War syndrome. Meanwhile, we must keep open minds and ensure that veterans receive not only our sympathy but also our strong support in obtaining the very best health care from the National Health Service and other care agencies.
	At the beginning of 2001, the MoD released details of 477 Gulf veterans who have since died. It said that 69 had developed cancer, 60 had suffered from diseases of the circulatory system and about 85 had committed suicide or died of injuries "undetermined whether accidental". In almost all the categories there were more deaths among a control group of personnel not sent to the Gulf. However, the figures may now have changed. I ask the Minister if he will update us on the current figures. The MoD said that the figures for the cancer deaths were,
	"markedly less than one would expect amongst a similarly sized group of the same age and sex from the civilian population".
	However, an MoD-funded study into the health of Gulf veterans, published in April 2001, indicated that Gulf War veterans were twice as likely to complain of ill health as other men and women in the services. Although there had been no excess deaths or hospital admissions, the study revealed that they had suffered from a "significant decline in health". I believe that the MoD denied that the figures indicated that veterans suffered ill health problems, but rather that they indicated that when Gulf veterans complained of symptoms they tended to be more severe.
	The Ministry of Defence has been criticised for failing to provide the financial and medical help needed by veterans suffering illnesses caused by the Gulf War. The Defence Select Committee demanded urgent action to improve veterans' quality of life. In its report on Gulf veterans' illness, published in April 2000, it concluded:
	"The government's record has been far less impressive in respect of improving the quality of life of ill veterans. We wish to see a great deal more progress in terms of ensuring Gulf veterans have access to adequate financial provision and to appropriate medical treatments and advice . . . Urgent action is required in both these areas if it is to fulfil the debt of honour which it has acknowledged".
	I now turn to the subject of depleted uranium--used for its extreme hardness and density--which has been blamed for illnesses among soldiers who fought in the Gulf War and among Iraqi civilians. Concerns have also been expressed about its use in operations over Kosovo.
	The most common uses for depleted uranium ammunition are in main battle tank shells (the UK has stocks for its Challenger tanks) and in aircraft cannon. The US A-10 "tank buster" aircraft carries a 30mm cannon in its nose which uses depleted uranium ammunition. A-10 operations accounted for the depleted uranium ammunition use in Kosovo. British forces did not use any depleted uranium ammunition in Kosovo.
	The alleged dangers of the use of DU ammunition have been examined both by the MoD in this country and by the US Department of Defense, and their investigations are continuing. So far, their studies have concluded that expended DU ammunition presents very little danger to civilians and service personnel.
	The Ministry of Defence asserted in its study on the testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict:
	"There are a number of ways in which some UK troops could have been exposed to DU during the Gulf conflict. However, it is judged that any radiation effects from these possible exposures are extremely unlikely to be a contributory factor to the illnesses currently being experienced by some Gulf veterans. Furthermore, because the kidney is the organ most susceptible to the toxic effects of (soluble) DU, and given the transient nature of any acute kidney damage, the symptoms which are most likely to be exhibited now in individuals who have ingested or inhaled large quantities are those of chronic kidney damage, although such damage could have been caused by a number of other unrelated factors. Chronic kidney damage has been observed in a very small number of those veterans who have so far attended the MAP (Medical Assessments Programme), although in each case this damage has been directly attributed to other specific diseases".
	The Ministry of Defence announced on 8th September 1999 that the Gulf War veterans tested for depleted uranium in Canadian tests and concerned by the results would be given the opportunity to be re-tested in Britain. The effects of depleted uranium are also being studied by a group of six experts appointed by the Royal Society, and the World Health Organisation has set in train a study to set standards on depleted uranium and define minimum levels of contamination.
	In January 2001, there were widespread reports in the domestic and international media about possible exposure of British and allied forces to depleted uranium in the Balkans. Allegations were made that the health of peacekeepers in Bosnia or Kosovo may have been affected by their deployment. It was suggested that some peacekeeping personnel may have become ill as a result of exposure to depleted uranium in the Balkans.
	In January 2001, the MoD made the following statement:
	"Handled in accordance with the regulations, DU shells present no hazard to our forces. We have long recognised, however, that on the battlefield its debris might present a hazard from chemical toxicity, in the same way as any heavy metal such as lead, and a low level radiological hazard. The risk from chemical toxicity would arise from ingestion of the soluble depleted uranium oxides, and the radiological risk primarily from inhalation of the insoluble depleted uranium oxides. These risks arise from the dust created when DU strikes a hard target such as an armoured vehicle. In its massive form, as expended rounds or solid fragments, it is a negligible hazard".
	In view of the concern, the MoD announced an additional appropriate voluntary screening programme for our service personnel and civilians who have served in the Balkans.
	We on these Benches welcomed the extra medical checks on servicemen to give them peace of mind and enable them to understand the issue more clearly. But I must stress that no decision on the future use of depleted uranium ammunition should be taken for political reasons, as it is one of the very few armour piercing weapons that can destroy enemy armour.
	Evidence accumulated by some scientists since the Gulf war, where 10-times as much depleted uranium was used, has linked DU to birth defects in Iraq and long-term illnesses, including cancer. But none of the research has been conclusive. However, it is important to consider that either the use of, or storage of, chemical weapons by Iraqi forces in the region, as well as the oil fires caused by retreating Iraqi forces, could go some way to explaining the reported proliferation of cancers and other health conditions in southern Iraq.
	In conclusion, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Burnham, especially on the subject of anthrax, as well as those made by my noble friend Lady Park. The same applies to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, particularly his point about pensions. The situation is nothing less than scandalous. As stated earlier, the Government's record has not been impressive in respect of improving the quality of life of veterans who are ill--if they wish to fulfil the debt of honour that they have acknowledged.
	I am aware that these veterans have access to the full range of services available through the NHS or, if still serving, through the Defence Medical Services. In addition, the medical assessment programme has contributed to improving veterans' conditions in various practical ways. But can the Minister state what new action is being taken to improve the lot of these veterans? This country has always provided the necessary medical cover for our servicemen. That is a large contributory factor to the high morale that exists in our superbly well-trained Armed Forces today. It is critical that this high morale is sustained. It is our duty to ensure that no stone is left unturned to assist these veterans if our Armed Forces are to fight effectively to win wars.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for, once again, providing us with an opportunity to debate the Government's approach to Gulf veterans' illnesses. My noble friend's active interest in the subject is well known, and I welcome his involvement. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in tonight's debate.
	As has been said, this is my introduction to debates on the subject. It is fitting that we should be talking about veterans at a time when our own servicemen and women are putting themselves at risk in another theatre of war with their usual bravery, as did those veterans of the Gulf war. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, has just said, this House is always the first to acknowledge the huge debt that we owe to our servicemen and women, whether in the present or in the past.
	Having mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, perhaps I may welcome him to his new position on the Opposition Front Bench. He is a noble Lord with great experience, and great distinction, in the defence field. I very much look forward both to working with him and no doubt to disagreeing with him from time to time, though I suspect that that will not be very often. In the same breath, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, who served so well on the Opposition Front Bench for many years. He and I were, as it were, opposite each other for a very short period of time in the summer of this year. All Members of the House will recognise the fact that he behaved towards me, who was absolutely brand new to the Ministry of Defence, with sympathy, tolerance and good humour. We wish him the very best for the future.
	Since our previous debate on the subject in January of this year, to which reference has been made, the Government have undertaken much work on Gulf veterans' illnesses issues generally, and specifically addressed the concerns of those Gulf veterans who are ill. In the limited time available to me, I shall attempt to highlight some important developments since January, and to touch upon work that the Government have in hand.
	I want to make it quite clear at the beginning of my response that I shall not be able to answer the many proper questions that have been put to me this evening. However, I guarantee to write to noble Lords with the answers to their questions as soon as I am able to do so after the debate. I shall, of course, do my best to answer some of the questions raised.
	As has also been said, on 14th March this year the Prime Minister announced the appointment of my honourable friend Dr Lewis Moonie as Minister for Veterans Affairs. This was an important development for all Armed Forces veterans, including Gulf veterans, as they now have for the first time a single ministerial focal point for any queries or problems that may arise as a result of their service. The appointment reflects the Government's determination that veterans' issues should be handled in a co-ordinated and joined-up way to ensure a properly integrated approach.
	An interdepartmental veterans task force, supported by a veterans' forum, has been established to assist the Minister, and its first meeting will take place next month. The veterans' forum, including representatives of the veterans' groups, enables them to articulate to us their principal concerns. The first meeting was on 24th July and was a great success. We believe this will develop a close relationship with key veterans' organisations.
	The veterans' plenary forum met for the first time yesterday. It was a very successful meeting, with more than 200 representatives from veterans' groups attending. Its importance was highlighted by the attendance not only of Dr Moonie but of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State--at a time when, as your Lordships will know, his time is extremely precious.
	As part of this more integrated approach, the War Pensions Agency was transferred to the Ministry of Defence. I know that that has caused a little disquiet among some veterans. However, there is no question of the WPA losing its impartiality as it remains bound by the legislation that underpins the War Pensions Scheme. The agency's decisions in respect of individual cases will continue to be based on the case facts, the standard of proof required by law and contemporary medical understanding. Claimants for war pensions have, and will continue to have, a right of appeal to the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal service, part of the department of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The War Pensions Agency is working hard to reduce the amount of time it takes to consider claims.
	Certain claims have been made in relation to compensation and certain questions have been asked in relation to costs. I think they are worthy of an attempt to answer. My noble friend Lord Morris asked about costs of the MoD. Details are not readily available. Learned counsel was consulted on 15th April 1997 and Treasury solicitors have provided ad hoc legal advice since, but costs are not readily available.
	I want to make it absolutely clear that it is not the case that the Ministry of Defence or its legal advisers have ever made financial demands on claimants. If claimants' solicitors have sought additional funding for their clients, that has not followed demands from the ministry. Veterans should take this up with their solicitors, if they have concerns.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of compensation, as he has in the past. I have to say--this would apply to any Minister standing at the Dispatch Box--that when compensation claims are submitted they are considered on the basis of whether or not the department involved, in this case the Ministry of Defence, has a legal liability to pay compensation. When there is a legal liability to pay, compensation is of course paid. To have any lesser standard, bearing in mind that this is taxpayers' money, would not be a sensible thing for any government.
	We have made a concession to Gulf veterans by undertaking not to rely on the defence of limitation under the Limitation Act 1980 without giving solicitors prior notice. I tell the House that as of 30th September this year we had 1,890 active notices of intention to claim from veterans and members of their families in respect of illness allegedly arising from the Gulf conflict. However, the Ministry has yet to receive any writs or claims of sufficient detail.
	The veterans' forum is but one way in which the Government keep in touch with veterans and their representatives. An updated information pack published in January of this year about the illnesses of Gulf veterans has been sent to all GPs in the United Kingdom as well as to those other interested parties, including health professionals and those in the Defence Medical Services. Over 48,000 copies have now been dispatched. The Ministry of Defence's Internet website is frequently updated and is an increasingly valuable way of making information public. Gulf Update, the newsletter produced by the Ministry of Defence's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit, is published every six months and sent to several hundred veterans, parliamentarians and other interested parties. The veterans and others continue to contact the MoD via our freephone helplines and receive appropriate assistance. In addition, there is a considerable amount of correspondence.
	Of course these issues are rightly much scrutinised by Parliament, both here and in another place. Some 70 parliamentary Questions have been tabled on the subject of Gulf veterans' illnesses and on depleted uranium since January. Noble Lords may recall that in May the Minister for veterans' affairs and the head of the Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit gave evidence on both topics to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. Their evidence and a memorandum submitted to the committee by the Ministry of Defence have been published.
	The Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme has been running now for many years and in that time has seen over 3,200 patients. Since January, over 150 patients have been seen. There was an increase in referrals earlier in the year which I believe was a reflection of the considerable media attention given to depleted uranium and because more health practitioners are now aware of the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme rather than due to an increase in the numbers of veterans becoming ill. The annual underlying trend in referrals continues to decline.
	Up to September, the results of an analysis of a satisfaction questionnaire showed that 96 per cent of medical assessment programme patients who responded were satisfied and 26 per cent added comments to express the extent of their satisfaction. However, we should not be complacent. A significant proportion of the medical assessment programme's patients live a long way from London and some find it difficult to travel. As a trial, since May a small number of patients are being seen at a clinic held approximately every two months and run by the head of the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme in Northallerton, North Yorkshire. Patients are given exactly the same assessment as they would have received had they come to London and early indications are that this trial is a success.
	On 29th June the MAP published a paper on its clinical findings of the second thousand service and ex-service patients to be examined. Of those examined, 80 per cent were well and 20 per cent were unwell. The authors of the paper defined those who were unwell as having an active disease or symptoms interfering with daily living. Of the 20 per cent who were unwell as defined, 70 per cent had psychiatric disorders. This demonstrates the importance of the psychiatric referral network that has been established. As noble Lords will know--I shall not go into detail now--the Government have identified mental illness as one of our three health priorities and have addressed it in the mental health national service framework. Much extra investment has been put into that for the next year.
	Research into what all noble Lords would agree is the complicated issue of Gulf veterans' illnesses is continuing and further results of Ministry of Defence-funded research have become available in the past few months. I was surprised to hear criticism of the fact that research was taking place. Imagine the criticism there would be if research was not taking place. It is important, both for the veterans themselves and for the Ministry of Defence, that research is done properly and that time is taken on it so that the conclusions can be relied on.
	On 12th April, a team from Manchester University published its results from a study looking at the ill health of Gulf veterans. It found that although Gulf veterans report greater severity of symptoms than those who were not deployed to the Gulf, the overall severity of their symptoms is not high. Those findings also suggest that vaccinations and the handling of pesticides might be a cause of certain patterns of ill health. Research in both areas is ongoing. The interaction works at the defence science and technology labs at Porton Down are working on organophosphate pesticides, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, work at Manchester Royal Infirmary and work at King's College, London.
	In July last year, the University of Manchester team reported the results of their independent study into mortality among Gulf veterans. We have updated those figures every six months. Between 1st April 1991 and 30th June this year there were 496 deaths to Gulf veterans, compared with 494 in a comparison group who did not deploy to the Gulf. That means that there was essentially no difference in overall death rates between the Gulf veterans and the controls. Deaths due to external causes, particularly road traffic accidents, were slightly more common among Gulf veterans. We are researching that further.
	A paper by a team at Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine entitled Ten Years On; What do we know about Gulf War Syndrome? noted:
	"No evidence has emerged to date of neither distinct biomedical abnormalities nor premature mortality",
	among Gulf veterans. The programme of research initiated by the Government to investigate the possible adverse health effects that might result from the combined administration of the nerve agent pre-treatment tablets and vaccines used during the conflict is also making progress. Such a thorough and complicated study takes time and final results are not expected until 2003.
	Another government-funded study is examining the reproductive health of Gulf veterans and their partners and the health of their children. Results are expected to be published next year.
	The Ministry of Defence has spent approximately £4.7 million on the studies described. It is estimated that they will cost another £1.5 million to complete. We continue to monitor research undertaken in the United States.
	I am conscious that I am beyond my time, but I believe that the debate has not reached its conclusion, so I hope that noble Lords will bear with me, because depleted uranium has also been mentioned and I have a little to say about it. The possible health effects of depleted uranium-based ammunition are a cause for concern among veterans and their families as well as in the Ministry of Defence. In particular, a link has been suggested between exposure to depleted uranium and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, the Government are taking urgent steps to put in place an appropriate voluntary screening programme. We have constituted an independent oversight board comprising eminent scientists and representatives of the veterans' organisations to take forward and oversee proposals recently published for public consultation. We emphasise that it is vital that the arrangements that are put in place are technically well founded and properly validated. We recognise that that process is taking some time.
	The consultative processes and the independent oversight board are a clear demonstration of our intention to be open in developing plans for a screening programme. The oversight board met for the first time on 27th September.
	On 22nd May, the Royal Society published a report on its independent review of the health hazards of depleted uranium-based ammunition. Its main thrust strongly supports our view of the radiological risks posed by DU on the battlefield, which is that its use in the Gulf and the Balkans has presented only an extremely low health hazard to UK forces.
	Anthrax was also mentioned during the debate. I have little to say about it today except that in March the Ministry of Defence announced its intention to resume anthrax immunisation in April. On 21st May we resumed the voluntary immunisation programme for personnel deployed in operations to the Gulf, together with some specialist units. We shall offer anthrax immunisation as it has previously been offered to personnel on the basis of informed voluntary consent.
	Of course, we hope that in the current crisis we shall have learned lessons from what happened 10 years ago. However, I do not believe that tonight noble Lords will expect me to go into detail about what specifically has and has not been done in the field of protecting our servicemen and women. The Ministry of Defence wants to be as open as possible with the House. I shall go as far as I can in letters to noble Lords with the details that they seek.
	This debate has highlighted the concern for Gulf veterans. I was going to talk in some detail about the war pensions scheme. However, time is against me and, as not much mention was made of that subject during the course of the debate, I shall leave that part of my speech until another day.
	The Government's position is that we are committed to dealing with Gulf veterans openly, honestly and fairly. We believe that we have made considerable progress since our previous debate. We shall continue to treat this matter as a high priority, and we are always ready to listen to suggestions for improvement. As I said, research on a broad range of topics is continuing into what is a difficult subject. Answers will not be found overnight.
	In the meantime, in the consultation that we carry out we shall keep an open mind about the causes of the ill health that has been experienced. We shall continue to do what we can to assist veterans who are unwell and the families of those who, sadly, have died. We remain committed to addressing the health concerns of Gulf veterans. I conclude by again thanking noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.